Yes, but because she could not win the votes of a group of testaments to the devastating mental effects of inbreeding, she lost.

Which is why Clinton winning the popular vote is only a demonstration of how the Electoral College is massively flawed. I'm curious what the numbers would have looked like if the votes were distributed proportionately to the popular vote as opposed to the all or nothing system that I think I'm safe in saying has proven itself to advantage the Republicans after two Republican presidential victories in my lifetime that lost the popular vote.

Of course, my point was that saying it was close isn't as much of an argument as it was for Bush and Gore. Now, granted, I am not saying that the Electoral College is the only factor in Trumps victory (of which I give the most blame to the media for treating him with kid gloves while constantly harping on the fucking e-mails), but I do think it is a factor.

EDIT: Also, low voter turnout is not why Trump won, by the way. Turnout was down from 2012, but by only 1.3%.

Which is why Clinton winning the popular vote is only a demonstration of how the Electoral College is massively flawed. I'm curious what the numbers would have looked like if the votes were distributed proportionately to the popular vote as opposed to the all or nothing system that I think I'm safe in saying has proven itself to advantage the Republicans after two Republican presidential victories in my lifetime that lost the popular vote.

I'm already planning to do this on another forum as soon as all the results are certified. I'll definitely post it here, as well.

Generally speaking, I usually see people claim it's to prevent the tyranny of the majority (ironic how they're so concerned with that when it benefits them, but happily cite the majority opinion on things like gay marriage), but I would be more likely to wager that it's an efficiency measure due to difficulty in counting ballots in the 18th century.

Keep in mind that states have an exclusive and plenary power to decide how to allocate their votes in the Electoral College--even today, Maine and Nebraska allocate by congressional seat (hence 2 votes to the statewide winner for the Senate seats, and 1 to the winner in each House district--and Obama won Nebraska's 2nd district in 2008 and Trump won Maine's 2nd district this year). The winner-take-all system was not in common use early on; congressional district apportionment was used, or having the state Governor choose, or what have you.

It was a military coup. The FBI and the NYT told everyone to vote for a Nazi, so they did.

Fred, I've got to tell you. Sometimes, you make some very good points. Other times, you sound like a hysterical tin foil hat enthusiast. Guess which category your latest post falls into?

Comey's timing was a bit on the sus side.

Still, Fred (and Niam as well) isn't doing anyone any favors by talking about "coups" and "Nazis" and "incompetent degenerates". I wonder how many people realize that many, many people voted for Trump because he offered a change, and Hillary did not? That many people voted for Trump because Hillary had no platform aside from "don't vote for that other guy"? That a lot of people were concerned with the absolute multitude of baggage she was trailing around behind her? Or that she actively attempted to shut down all other fronts and information in her campaign?

Let's be honest here... The Alt-right is just a rebranding of white-power racism to make it more acceptable to general public. http://qz.com/841036/is-steve-bannon-a-white-supremacist-trumps-advisor-wants-to-rebrand-racism-as-american-nationalism/?utm_source=qzfb

She lacked passion is what she did and had the arrogance to assume the cat was in the bag. It was never in the bag.

Isn't that almost exactly how she lost the primaries 8 years ago?

That's part of it, yes.

And speaking of primaries, there's also the fact that the DNC essentially rigged them in her favor. Say what you will about Trump, but at least he got his nomination fair and square (as far as we know), despite the GOP establishment's constant efforts to stop him. It would be admirable if he wasn't such an extremist asshole...

DNC tilted the Democratic party's primary for Clinton's favor but looking at her victory margin it was far from the decisive factor. The main factors were that the southern black voters usually (and for very understandable reasons) go for what they see as the safe choice and Sanders started his campaign way too late. There was also the fact that she didn't have any real challengers besides Sanders and even he didn't realize at first that he had a chance to actually pose a challenge for her.

While it's interesting and kind of cathartic to speculate what would have happened if Sanders had jumped in earlier or if a third serious challenger like Biden had been in the race that was not how things went. In the end, the DNC's schemes only hurt both them and Clinton and the bitter irony is that she wouldn't have needed them to win the candidacy.

DNC tilted the Democratic party's primary for Clinton's favor but looking at her victory margin it was far from the decisive factor. The main factors were that the southern black voters usually (and for very understandable reasons) go for what they see as the safe choice and Sanders started his campaign way too late. There was also the fact that she didn't have any real challengers besides Sanders and even he didn't realize at first that he had a chance to actually pose a challenge for her.

While it's interesting and kind of cathartic to speculate what would have happened if Sanders had jumped in earlier or if a third serious challenger like Biden had been in the race that was not how things went. In the end, the DNC's schemes only hurt both them and Clinton and the bitter irony is that she wouldn't have needed them to win the candidacy.

That reminds me of how my uncle said Nixon still probably would've won in '72 had he played fair. But he just had to cheat, and he screwed himself over in the long term.

It was a military coup. The FBI and the NYT told everyone to vote for a Nazi, so they did.

Fred, I've got to tell you. Sometimes, you make some very good points. Other times, you sound like a hysterical tin foil hat enthusiast. Guess which category your latest post falls into?

Comey's timing was a bit on the sus side.

Still, Fred (and Niam as well) isn't doing anyone any favors by talking about "coups" and "Nazis" and "incompetent degenerates". I wonder how many people realize that many, many people voted for Trump because he offered a change, and Hillary did not? That many people voted for Trump because Hillary had no platform aside from "don't vote for that other guy"? That a lot of people were concerned with the absolute multitude of baggage she was trailing around behind her? Or that she actively attempted to shut down all other fronts and information in her campaign?

...Nah, it must just be 60 million racists and sexists, right?

I don't think it's anywhere near that simple, nor do I think it's a coup but racism certainly played a part. You know what else played a part though? People not voting! Voter turnout was lower than the last two federal US elections. So yeah race-baiting, Comey's fuckery and economic malaise all played a part but the "eh, both sides suck" crowd also owns a big share of reponsibility for this mess.

I think before we start pointing fingers, we should try to understand why Trump got the support he did. From what I can see, two of the big factors were anti-establishment sentiment and just how divided America has become.

Third parties got, depending on the state, two to five times more votes than the last two elections, so I do think the protest voters were a factor because apparently worthless principle is more important than keeping a fascist out of the White House to the Bernie or Bust crowd.

The problem I'm seeing on the Democratic side is that everyone is trying to find a smoking gun reason why Trump won. This is reductionist and little more than finger pointing. Comey, the fucking e-mails, the "both sides suck" crowd, Clinton being unlikable to a hell of a lot of people (still don't get why, but this is the reality), the media treating Trump with kid gloves, sexism and racism are all factors, but none of them are the smoking gun people want to point to.

It's less of a single smoking gun and more.like the aftermath of a John Woo Mexican standoff gone wrong!

Which is pretty much what I'm getting at. It's another case of people wanting an easy answer to a difficult problem. The Democrats have four years to sort this shit out, but I'm afraid that they're going to pick one or two of the numerous factors that lead to their defeat and ignore the rest.

Third parties got, depending on the state, two to five times more votes than the last two elections, so I do think the protest voters were a factor because apparently worthless principle is more important than keeping a fascist out of the White House to the Bernie or Bust crowd.

The problem I'm seeing on the Democratic side is that everyone is trying to find a smoking gun reason why Trump won. This is reductionist and little more than finger pointing. Comey, the fucking e-mails, the "both sides suck" crowd, Clinton being unlikable to a hell of a lot of people (still don't get why, but this is the reality), the media treating Trump with kid gloves, sexism and racism are all factors, but none of them are the smoking gun people want to point to.

I think the first step in trying to figure out why Trump won is looking at why he got enough support in the first place. When I join a new forum, I generally listen first, talk later. So I'd be interested in hearing what you guys have to say.

Trump won because he was highly successful in speaking to disenfranchised rural blue collared voters who have been largely feeling ignored for a long time. Their jobs have been disappearing for a long time and what once was large booming towns filled with steel mills, or mines, or manufacturing plants are slowly turning to ghost towns filled with meth dens and crumbling infrastructure. Trump spoke out against NAFTA and TPP which a large population of middle america hate and blame for jobs going over seas. Truth is these jobs have been starting to leave way before NAFTA became a thing. Trump and Clinton were already both highly disliked candidates. What hurt Clinton was that the same people who came out for Obama didn't come out for Clinton this time. Southern blacks and younger voters didn't feel energized by Clinton's more moderate democrat stance. Blacks didn't feel they were helped out much from eight years with Obama, so why would they turn out for someone who doesn't understand them. Younger voters are growing more progressive and Clinton just seemed more status quo.Trump was able to excite a large group of voters that were previously ignored, and they came out in droves to vote for him. Not all of them are racists, not all of them hate foreigners, but some feel he can bring their jobs back and they were willing to over look the dangerous borderline racists, sexist shit Trump has said in the past.The truth is Trump is not going to bring the jobs back, and any jobs he tries to force to stay here will be costly. Wall street big wigs will fight him on that. He can try to impose tariffs on businesses importing goods into the US that manufactured in foreign countries, but that will just end up hurting the consumer with higher prices in an already stagnated economy with stagnated wages. Republicans want to impose tax cuts on the extremely wealthy again which is just going to hurt the middle class even more. He's not going to be able to build a wall. Republicans hate spending on infrastructure and they certainly are not going to spend billions on a pipe dream that will most likely take way past Trumps four years in office to even start development, and no Mexico is not going to pay for it. The same will happen on deportation.Every candidate makes promises or goals that they want to accomplish that will never pass, like Obama and Gitmo. The problem is Trump spoke of grandious promises that will most likely never come to fruition. A lot of voters will most likely see this and not turn out to vote next time.

I think before we start pointing fingers, we should try to understand why Trump got the support he did. From what I can see, two of the big factors were anti-establishment sentiment and just how divided America has become.

That and he promised to bring some measure of prosperity back to the lower classes, especially the rural poor. Now that US manufacturing is uncompetitive, those who live in the country and aren't farmers have basically no opportunities. There's fast food, and that's about it. Between that and the high cost of living in cities making it nearly impossible for those people to simple move there, they're pretty much trapped in poverty with no way out. It used to be the case that small towns would have a factory or a mine or some other large industry that would be its primary source of wealth. Nowadays those have been mostly outsourced, and the government has done nothing to help the those who've lost their livelihoods as a result. Now, Trump comes along and is the first politician, well, ever, to not only not ignore them while throwing what's left of their livelihoods under the bus with trade deals like NAFTA, but actually promise to help them by bringing back America's manufacturing industry, it's no wonder he was so well received. "Make America Great Again" didn't mean "get rid of all the Mexicans and put the darkies back in their place", unlike what some seemed to think, it means "bring back wealth and opportunities for everyone, not just the urban elite", which ironically is what the left is supposed to be about.

Which brings me to the left, which as a whole completely missed the point and assumed that Trump supporters are all just racists, and decided that hurling insults instead of actually talking to and persuading Trump supporters would ensure a win for Clinton. Well, given that people tend not to side with those that insult them, Trump's victory is far less surprising that some people seem to think it is.

Now, if anything good can come of this, it's the left getting their shit together and realising they have to do better than ignoring their opponents when they're not hurling insults at them. That they have to make the effort to talk to Trump supporters and find out from them why they support him, instead of just assuming they're racists. What can I say, it'd be nice to see activists of my ideology (well, more so than their opponents) do a little better than a campaign of name calling, followed by literal tears when, surprise fucking surprise, they lose.

Honestly, it's shit like this that almost makes me consider going alt right, if only to not be associated with a bunch of melodramatic manchildren.

Art acts as if econmic malaise and racism is an either/or proposition. It isn't, in fact the flames of racism and other bigotry are fanned by economic problems.

Trump not only promised to reopen mines and factories. He did it in tandemn with promising a stonking great wall between North America and it's brown skinned southern neighbours and intentionallu conflated refugees fleeing ISIS with ISIS.

FFS economic stagnation has gone hand in hand with nationalist movements promising to make their country great again AND cosh minorities and foreigners since at least the thirities.

Never underestimate the bottomless stupidity of the average American. It doesn't matter what Trump promises. Just about all of his campaign promises were empty, except the ones that will specifically benefit the extremely wealthy and actively hurt the poor. Nothing Trump can do will bring jobs back from overseas. Nothing Trump will do will get his useless wall built. The only things his presidency will do is legitimatize racists (which his election already has), cut taxes on the wealthy, wreck the economy and repeal Obamacare. There's also real danger of Roe v. Wade and marriage equality being overturned. Trump's presidency will be a complete disaster and the worst part of it is that his voters won't just fail to realize that the Republicans have been everything that's been wrong with the federal government for the last 6 years, they have their heads so deep in the sand that they'll believe Trump every single time he pushes the blame on everyone else.

Honestly, it's shit like this that almost makes me consider going alt right, if only to not be associated with a bunch of melodramatic manchildren.

...yes, if there's one thing no one's ever accused the alt right of, it's being a bunch of melodramatic manchildren

Good point.

Can we be clear who we are talking about when we say "the left"? Because I can certainly see the Democratic hierarchy doing that but I thought we agreed in another thread they weren't really the "left". Identity politics supremos with weaponized offence would probably also be on board but surely if "left wing" has any coherent meaning it should cover an economic dimension.

A Democrat doner who thinks he's left wing because he has a gay butler, eco friendly light bulbs in his mansion and a Hispanic maid is no more left wing than Australia's own Malcolm Turnbull who recently rebuked Trump by singing the praises of "fair trade", which is to say, not in the slightest.

Can we be clear who we are talking about when we say "the left"? Because I can certainly see the Democratic hierarchy doing that but I thought we agreed in another thread they weren't really the "left". Identity politics supremos with weaponized offence would probably also be on board but surely if "left wing" has any coherent meaning it should cover an economic dimension.

A Democrat doner who thinks he's left wing because he has a gay butler, eco friendly light bulbs in his mansion and a Hispanic maid is no more left wing than Australia's own Malcolm Turnbull who recently rebuked Trump by singing the praises of "fair trade", which is to say, not in the slightest.

I meant it as a catch-all term for pretty much everyone opposed to Trump. Obviously it's rather vague and nebulous, but that's generally what happens when you try to put basically every political ideology in the world into one of two categories. I guess we can call them something else, if you'd prefer.

Besides, it was far from Clinton's campaign that was conflating Trump supporters with racists. You'd be rather hard pressed to find any anti-Trump activists who didn't.

As to my comments about them being incompetent degenerates, I don't feel the need to sugarcoat what I feel about these "people". They say they want change, and I say they don't deserve it. They dug this hole with repeatedly voting for people who do nothing but make sure they're miserable. There is no magic Trump can do to reopen those mines and factories. I say let them climb out of it themselves instead of burdening reasonable society.

I saw all I needed to of Trump Supporters - their "Trump that bitch" shirts and their flags and their horrific hairdos and below average intelligence and inability to tell when a joke is on them.

I would rather chat up a chimpanzee than ever have dialogue with the Trump Supporter.

As far as I am concerned, they've done well to earn me ignoring their problems - in fact, if I had the choice to, I'd make their problems worse.

As to my comments about them being incompetent degenerates, I don't feel the need to sugarcoat what I feel about these "people". They say they want change, and I say they don't deserve it. They dug this hole with repeatedly voting for people who do nothing but make sure they're miserable. There is no magic Trump can do to reopen those mines and factories. I say let them climb out of it themselves instead of burdening reasonable society.

I saw all I needed to of Trump Supporters - their "Trump that bitch" shirts and their flags and their horrific hairdos and below average intelligence and inability to tell when a joke is on them.

I would rather chat up a chimpanzee than ever have dialogue with the Trump Supporter.

As far as I am concerned, they've done well to earn me ignoring their problems - in fact, if I had the choice to, I'd make their problems worse.

I see a large part of the Republican voters as victims. They live in a bubble where they are convinced that their best bet to improve their lives are the same people who keep screwing them over. Instead of fighting the cultural attitudes that feed ignorant racism in these people the Republican party and their other leaders work to maintain them. Having Democrats and minorities as scapegoats for their problems is an easier way to keep them in line than actually trying to help them.

The kind of racism that is bred by ignorance is a global phenomenon and a part of the human condition, it should be fought by fighting ignorance. This requires both an understanding attitude at their problems and attacking their leadership and the Republican party as an institution. This is not easy to do since the Republicans will do their best to turn any attack on those who deserve it to an attack on the whole group. A good example is how Hillary's "basket of deplorables" comment was taken out of context. The mistake she made was apologizing for it - and implicitly admitting fault - instead of doubling down with a wording that isn't so easy to take out of context and make into a sound bite.

Then there is the other kind. The KKK types, neo-nazis and the worst of the alt-right crowd who are so hateful that they are just human scum. Even they aren't all lost cases but as a group the only useful strategical option is to fight them as hard as you can.

I see a large part of the Republican voters as victims. They live in a bubble where they are convinced that their best bet to improve their lives are the same people who keep screwing them over. Instead of fighting the cultural attitudes that feed ignorant racism in these people the Republican party and their other leaders work to maintain them. Having Democrats and minorities as scapegoats for their problems is an easier way to keep them in line than actually trying to help them.

The kind of racism that is bred by ignorance is a global phenomenon and a part of the human condition, it should be fought by fighting ignorance. This requires both an understanding attitude at their problems and attacking their leadership and the Republican party as an institution. This is not easy to do since the Republicans will do their best to turn any attack on those who deserve it to an attack on the whole group. A good example is how Hillary's "basket of deplorables" comment was taken out of context. The mistake she made was apologizing for it - and implicitly admitting fault - instead of doubling down with a wording that isn't so easy to take out of context and make into a sound bite.

Then there is the other kind. The KKK types, neo-nazis and the worst of the alt-right crowd who are so hateful that they are just human scum. Even they aren't all lost cases but as a group the only useful strategical option is to fight them as hard as you can.

The original "Basket of Deplorables" quote said much the same thing

Quote

...I know there are only 60 days left to make our case -- and don't get complacent, don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, well, he's done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America."

But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

Given that about 9% of the US population voted at all (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html?_r=0) one half of the Trump vote doesn't put Clinton's guess at the size the alt right at such a huge number-but you don't have to be a huge number to be influential.

The other problem is, of course, that neither Clinton nor Trump actually had a plan for the people who the economy let down in America-and why would they? They don't form part of the donor class that makes Washington's beltway run and they aren't part of either's favored inner circles.

Given that about 9% of the US population voted at all (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html?_r=0) one half of the Trump vote doesn't put Clinton's guess at the size the alt right at such a huge number-but you don't have to be a huge number to be influential.

About 131 million people voted (http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174), the population of the US is about 325 million (https://www.census.gov/popclock/). That's 40%, not 9%. Your source is talking about the number of people who voted for either Trump or Hillary in the primaries.

(also, the alt-right, neo-nazis, the KKK, maybe add up to a few tens of thousands of people. Their votes don't win elections. It was the good old regular right that mattered.)

(also, the alt-right, neo-nazis, the KKK, maybe add up to a few tens of thousands of people. Their votes don't win elections. It was the good old regular right that mattered.)

When their voice is raised above the rest and legitimized it becomes a powerful political weapon. Their rhetoric uses the ignorant racism to pull the right as a whole closer to them and shapes and directs the largely legitimate anger of the white poor and working class people. Attacks against the extremists can be twisted into an attack against all the right wing voters and make the liberal elite, the minorities and the left wing in general a common enemy that is an existential threat to their identity.

I think the Democrats made a big mistake when they decided to focus on identity politics over economic populism. There are so many Americans who are poorly off in this economy, Americans of all stripes. They could have used that fact to unite tens of millions of the disenfranchised in their favor. Instead, they decided to play the game of divide and conquer, and they lost. And now we're stuck with Trump for four years (assuming he serves out his term).

Honestly kinda hoping he does. As bad as Trump is, Pence is far, far worse. Trump may be a buffoon, but Pence is downright dangerous. Trump will take us back to 2004...Pence would take us back to the Stone Age.

I didn't say no Trump supporters were racist. My point is that racism was not the be all and end all of Trump's campaign, and the left assuming that it was is almost certainly why he won.

Even among "SJWs" (the smart ones, anyway), from what I've seen, the consensus is that Trump managed to harness the intense anti-establishment sentiment by running his entire campaign on "political incorrectness" and "going there". Most people are so misinformed and lacking in critical thinking skills that they interpreted Trump's constant signaling of his status as a political outsider (in both senses of the term) as a guarantee of his sincerity, his willingness to tear down a corrupt, out-of-touch establishment, and replace it with... well, I have no idea, and I think I'm already pushing my reflection further than most people are willing to.

Hindsight is always 20/20 but it was a huge mistake for Clinton to go after the Republican women. They have been in an anti-Clinton propaganda and conspiracy theory bubble since 90's and she even more than Bill has become a symbol of all real and imagined that is evil to them in politics. A big part of her selling pitch in primaries was that her image has been stabilized but the campaign didn't realize how true that was in this context. Yes, there is an authoritarian and racist sentiment involved that responded to Trump and women can also support structural sexism but when you make the campaign about competing personalities you cannot ignore your own baggage in their eyes.

As for the economical perspective: statistically there is no real correlation between unemployment and voting Trump but when you look deeper you start to see a pattern. In areas where the job market is dominated by low wage service jobs or manufacturing jobs that are in danger of being moved abroad people voted for Trump.

People are generally very self-centered when they are going through difficult times and if they think someone cares about their problems they are willing to rationalize away things they that don't like and they would otherwise not tolerate. This is where things like institutional sexist and racist undertones come in: these people were willing to ignore Trump's flaws and take a chance that he could actually improve their lives as he promised. When Clinton crushed Trump's facade in the debates they started to see through him but she allowed people forget his weakness and get lured back to his con. She is not only a more capable leader but also a way stronger leader than Trump and she could have tried to build on his weak debate performance instead of taking attention away from it.

I would really like to see a test where people who defended Trump's sexism and racism were given anonymous offensive statements and asked to comment on them. Some of these would be Trump's less known statements and others taken from other loathsome people with a few of Trump's more recent and famous ones included. If the test could be performed so that the people were not aware of what was being tested the results might be interesting. My guess is that anything that they'd know is by Trump they'd defend but would not be as eager to defend things that they wouldn't connect to him.

I'll end with something that is based on hearsay from someone who claims to have been involved in statistical analysis for Clinton's campaign in his state so take it with as much salt as you want:

The statistical model they used gave union workers in his state a large score in loyalty to the Democratic party. A big reason was that they had reliably voted for Obama in the last two elections but there was also a data mining operation involved that mapped people's consuming habits etc. The campaign calculated that since the model said their vote was guaranteed any resources needed to court their vote would more productively be used to get more votes elsewhere. Of course, when it came to voting drives, these reliable voters needed to be activated. Guess who these people ended up voting in the end? The campaign gifted these votes to Trump on a platter.

There's a lot of chatter saying that the fears of the left are unfounded or that Trump is exaggerating, I'm not so sure. I don't think he'll build a wall or return the factories or the coalmines but post election his behavior hasn't really deviated much from his campaign persona (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/18/donald-trump-presidential-transition-norms). Thin skinned, bloviating, vengeful and chaotic. I'd recommend Autocracy:Rules for Survival (http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/10/trump-election-autocracy-rules-for-survival/). Trump may not be a Warcraft style God-Emperor yet, and he may not get there but it won't be for lack of trying.

I'm much more worried about the crowd he is surrounding himself with. His own ambition is probably pumping as much money as possible to his companies and fattening his investment portfolio while basking in the limelight as the president. The real damage is going to be done by his cabinet and advisors and of course the Republican Congress and Senate.

I'm all for it but it should be a long term project. The only way it would be possible to start during Trump's presidency would be to submit to the Republicans. Like I said earlier, I think that the party institution and the leaders of the conservative movement need to be fought as long as they promote harmful policies. Without a position of strength it is not possible to accomplish much since the Republican agenda involves making sure the country stays divided.

I think a good way to make sure Trump doesn't get a second term is to try and heal the political divides. He was able to win partly because he exploited them to his advantage.

Really, I think we could all stand to be a little more tolerant of opposing viewpoints.

I"m... not sure what you are going for. Can you give some examples of characteristically right-wing talking points that are treated by the political left, not just inadequately, but with undeserved intolerance? Preferably from those divides that Trump was able to "exploit to his advantage"?

I think a good way to make sure Trump doesn't get a second term is to try and heal the political divides. He was able to win partly because he exploited them to his advantage.

Really, I think we could all stand to be a little more tolerant of opposing viewpoints.

I can tolerate people being pissed off because they are unemployed because their factory moved to Mexico just fine, it's perfectly justifiable. I don't see why anybody should tolerate people who then go on to blame Mexicans specifically. Shittiness is shittiness.

I'm much more worried about the crowd he is surrounding himself with. His own ambition is probably pumping as much money as possible to his companies and fattening his investment portfolio while basking in the limelight as the president. The real damage is going to be done by his cabinet and advisors and of course the Republican Congress and Senate.

I'm seeing a lot of worrying comparisons with Bush's relationship with his advisers. Ambitious ideologues who want to steer the country in their chosen direction and a president who can't be bothered with the technical details. That's what happened with Bush/Cheney and it led directly to Iraq and the implosion of that country and neighbouring ISIS.

Now we have a national security adviser who thinks that fear of Muslims is rational (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/19/michael-flynn-will-be-a-disaster-as-national-security-adviser) an attorney general who has opposed every legal immigration measure in his political career and once quipped that he liked the KKK until he found out they smoked pot (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/18/10-things-to-know-about-sen-jeff-sessions-donald-trumps-pick-for-attorney-general/) and of course a chief strategist and senior counselor to the President who ran the public voice of the alt-right.

These guys will have the ear of a fickle, easily distracted and thin skinned president. That's scary stuff.

(also, the alt-right, neo-nazis, the KKK, maybe add up to a few tens of thousands of people. Their votes don't win elections. It was the good old regular right that mattered.)

When their voice is raised above the rest and legitimized it becomes a powerful political weapon. Their rhetoric uses the ignorant racism to pull the right as a whole closer to them and shapes and directs the largely legitimate anger of the white poor and working class people. Attacks against the extremists can be twisted into an attack against all the right wing voters and make the liberal elite, the minorities and the left wing in general a common enemy that is an existential threat to their identity.

I don't deny that the alt-right was significant (if nothing else, in drawing the focus of the left away from things that mattered more). I'm saying they are not a substantial part of Trump voters.

I think a good way to make sure Trump doesn't get a second term is to try and heal the political divides. He was able to win partly because he exploited them to his advantage.

Really, I think we could all stand to be a little more tolerant of opposing viewpoints.

I"m... not sure what you are going for. Can you give some examples of characteristically right-wing talking points that are treated by the political left, not just inadequately, but with undeserved intolerance? Preferably from those divides that Trump was able to "exploit to his advantage"?

That's not quite what I was getting at, but I guess I can give you an example. I used to roll my eyes at right-wingers complaining about the "liberal media". But now I think they have a point. Just look at the dirty laundry Wikileaks aired.

(also, the alt-right, neo-nazis, the KKK, maybe add up to a few tens of thousands of people. Their votes don't win elections. It was the good old regular right that mattered.)

When their voice is raised above the rest and legitimized it becomes a powerful political weapon. Their rhetoric uses the ignorant racism to pull the right as a whole closer to them and shapes and directs the largely legitimate anger of the white poor and working class people. Attacks against the extremists can be twisted into an attack against all the right wing voters and make the liberal elite, the minorities and the left wing in general a common enemy that is an existential threat to their identity.

I don't deny that the alt-right was significant (if nothing else, in drawing the focus of the left away from things that mattered more). I'm saying they are not a substantial part of Trump voters.

The alt-right has never been big and that's never been the point of them. Alt right fester-holes like /pol/ are filled with imagery and attitudes designed specifically to chase away outsiders but one thing the alt-right learned from the campaign that must not be named (http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6886.0) is that you can appear larger than you actually are and have a real impact (at least in the short term) disproportionate to your actual size merely by strategic trolling.

That's not quite what I was getting at, but I guess I can give you an example. I used to roll my eyes at right-wingers complaining about the "liberal media". But now I think they have a point. Just look at the dirty laundry Wikileaks aired.

I don't know. The DNC emails were less "skeletons in the closet" and more "dirty laundry". Disgusting, depressing, for sure, but there's nothing there that I would call surprising. If anything, the amount and extent of media collusion revealed by the leaks was actually less than I expected.

As for the "liberal mainstream media" phrase... well, its history put aside, the accusation in itself isn't exactly wrong. CNN, NBC, NYT & co do tend to favor views that are seen as "left-wing" in the context of American politics, and while it is true that "reality has a liberal bias" on science-related issues, it cannot explain everything. Coupled with an inherent slant towards the societal (not just political) establishment they are an integral part of, this typically translates into tacit support for the Dems.

What makes it eyeroll-worthy is that the loudest accusations of liberal bias tend to come from people who either trust, work for, or are propped by media outlets on the other side of the fence that have rather flimsier claims of basic trustfulness, let alone objectivity. It is almost never used as a warning to keep a critical and analytical mind, and almost always as an incentive to use the "right" sources of information.

That's not quite what I was getting at, but I guess I can give you an example. I used to roll my eyes at right-wingers complaining about the "liberal media". But now I think they have a point. Just look at the dirty laundry Wikileaks aired.

I don't know. The DNC emails were less "skeletons in the closet" and more "dirty laundry". Disgusting, depressing, for sure, but there's nothing there that I would call surprising. If anything, the amount and extent of media collusion revealed by the leaks was actually less than I expected.

As for the "liberal mainstream media" phrase... well, its history put aside, the accusation in itself isn't exactly wrong. CNN, NBC, NYT & co do tend to favor views that are seen as "left-wing" in the context of American politics, and while it is true that "reality has a liberal bias" on science-related issues, it cannot explain everything. Coupled with an inherent slant towards the societal (not just political) establishment they are an integral part of, this typically translates into tacit support for the Dems.

What makes it eyeroll-worthy is that the loudest accusations of liberal bias tend to come from people who either trust, work for, or are propped by media outlets on the other side of the fence that have rather flimsier claims of basic trustfulness, let alone objectivity. It is almost never used as a warning to keep a critical and analytical mind, and almost always as an incentive to use the "right" sources of information.

Part of that "Liberal bias" is that the "conservatives" in USA have some policies and ideas that are simply unacceptable in today's society. They support torture and then act like they have been betrayed when the media points out that torture is unconstitutional. They support militias arming up and having a stand off with the police over stolen property and believe that the media is part of some government conspiracy when they do not support armed insurgents. They have specifically decided to oppose GLBT rights time and time again and it is true that liberals are more likely to support equality for all but on matters like this the younger generations are generally more open minded regardless of political ideology so conservatives being proud of their opposition to any changes that would end discrimination (or even trying to make new laws that would discriminate more) is another thing where the conservatives themselves are the ones who cause this rift between them and liberals in USA.

Granted that not every conservative thinks like that but when more and more of them shift towards the right it makes them think that everyone else if moving to the left. "Clinging to their Bibles and their guns" as a reaction to a world that is evolving and scaring them is just making the divide between the people of USA bigger.

There is also the factor that the reporters and other people in mid to low positions tend to be socially liberal (at least in Finland and based on hearsay it's similar in the States) and that can lead to distorted reporting. On the other hand, when you go up the corporate ladder the social issues start to fade more to the background and the economical right wing ideology starts shining through. In this macro scale any liberal agenda only matters as a tool for making more money which means the corporations don't let their underlings ruffle too many feathers. Superficial, easily swallowed product is what they are after and the socially liberal issues are easily shaped into feel-good fluff or superficial outrage.

I'm not saying that the fluff or outrage is always bad or misleading. It just isn't in the interests of the big media companies to dig deeper into structural and economical issues since these work for the corporations's advantage which keeps the reporting superficial. This deeper reporting is what the newspaper media excels in and hopefully this type of reporting not just stays alive but actually has its voice heard.

Speaking as someone who studied journalism, I think people have a complete lack of understanding of how much work a journalist is supposed to do to avoid editorializing their work. There is such a thing as a "creeping bias." You have to remember that journalists aren't emotionless robots and that they have their own views on the issues they're covering. It's why a diverse press is not just important, but vital to the health of the field of journalism. It's also why I pay more attention to outsider outlets like the BBC and Al Jazeera than MSNBC or Fox.

Welp, apparently conservatives are having shitfits (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846) because Trump won't lock up Hillary Clinton (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846). He's also "disavowed" the alt right-after they helped him get into office, they're having shitfits too (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/alt-right-supporters-donald-trump-backlash-disavow-reddit-4chan) and getting into slapfights with each other over it (http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/11/22/white-pride-goeth-before-a-fall-alt-rightists-turn-on-each-other-over-hail-trump-vid/).

Who would have thunk that The Drumpf would have been less than straightforward with his greatest fans.? ;D

Welp, apparently conservatives are having shitfits (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846) because Trump won't lock up Hillary Clinton (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846). He's also "disavowed" the alt right-after they helped him get into office, they're having shitfits too (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/alt-right-supporters-donald-trump-backlash-disavow-reddit-4chan) and getting into slapfights with each other over it (http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/11/22/white-pride-goeth-before-a-fall-alt-rightists-turn-on-each-other-over-hail-trump-vid/).

Who would have thunk that The Drumpf would have been less than straightforward with his greatest fans.? ;D

Don't worry. He'll still dismantle the Affordable Care Act, repeal all of Obama's executive orders on things like overtime pay and climate regulations, and give massive tax cuts to the rich.

Welp, apparently conservatives are having shitfits (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846) because Trump won't lock up Hillary Clinton (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846). He's also "disavowed" the alt right-after they helped him get into office, they're having shitfits too (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/alt-right-supporters-donald-trump-backlash-disavow-reddit-4chan) and getting into slapfights with each other over it (http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/11/22/white-pride-goeth-before-a-fall-alt-rightists-turn-on-each-other-over-hail-trump-vid/).

Who would have thunk that The Drumpf would have been less than straightforward with his greatest fans.? ;D

Don't worry. He'll still dismantle the Affordable Care Act, repeal all of Obama's executive orders on things like overtime pay and climate regulations, and give massive tax cuts to the rich.

I don't doubt he'll do all of those things, slightly sadder will be the promises he'll break to the rust belt.

Folks, your new president won't bring back your factories and coal mines. And as for clearing the lobbyists out of Washington, they all have sweet spots on his transition team. Pretty much what all those urban hipsters whose window you tried to brick tried to warn you about really.

Welp, apparently conservatives are having shitfits (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846) because Trump won't lock up Hillary Clinton (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846). He's also "disavowed" the alt right-after they helped him get into office, they're having shitfits too (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/alt-right-supporters-donald-trump-backlash-disavow-reddit-4chan) and getting into slapfights with each other over it (http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/11/22/white-pride-goeth-before-a-fall-alt-rightists-turn-on-each-other-over-hail-trump-vid/).

Who would have thunk that The Drumpf would have been less than straightforward with his greatest fans.? ;D

How is he "disavowing" them when he keeps giving them cushy government jobs?

Welp, apparently conservatives are having shitfits (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846) because Trump won't lock up Hillary Clinton (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846). He's also "disavowed" the alt right-after they helped him get into office, they're having shitfits too (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/alt-right-supporters-donald-trump-backlash-disavow-reddit-4chan) and getting into slapfights with each other over it (http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/11/22/white-pride-goeth-before-a-fall-alt-rightists-turn-on-each-other-over-hail-trump-vid/).

Who would have thunk that The Drumpf would have been less than straightforward with his greatest fans.? ;D

How is he "disavowing" them when he keeps giving them cushy government jobs?

Welp, apparently Bannon is still groovy in Trump's book (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/donald-trump-steve-bannon-alt-right-white-nationalist-disavow) because...I dunno, the peasants aren't ready for "Hail Victory's" in public just yet and Bannon acts just like all the rest of them except for the dressing and Seig Heiling like a National Front reject from Britain in the 1980s part.

I miss the good old days when Neo-Nazis looked like this and didn't have any political support...

(click to show/hide)

(http://www.tylkkari.fi/sites/tylkkari.fi/files/kylatv2.jpg)

(click to show/hide)

Pekka Siitoin and his KDP (National Democratic Party) of drunken village idiots... good times.

This needs the legendary video about the party's seminar on a Baltic Sea cruise ship shot by a Swedish TV crew. Siitoin has a "discussion" in English with a Dutch guy and his Swedish girlfriend at 2:20. The rest of the video is mostly slightly more coherent drunken rambling in Finnish.http://youtu.be/wGSL6MkZpvQ?t=2m20s (http://youtu.be/wGSL6MkZpvQ?t=2m20s)

Well, we could try to invoke Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution. in particular, the emoulement clause:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."

So, how much damage do you think Trump will be able to do? Considering he's at loggerheads with much of the GOP, I'm cautiously optimistic.

They'll all kiss the ring, as will a good chunk of the Democrats.

Assuming that happens, what can be done to counter it? Let's think proactively.

I was being a bit hyperbolic. For one, it's very likely that the filibuster will remain in place, which will mean that on many issues, if the Democrats can present a united front (or even just near-united), they can block most legislative action, along with things like Supreme Court and Cabinet appointments. Sen. Graham has already said he'd vote against killing the filibuster, and there's a good chance that some others, like Sen. Collins, would join him.

For another, there are some Republicans who may well buck the party--people like Sen. Collins, from Democratic-leaning states, or people who will do so on principle, like Sen. Graham with the filibuster or Sen. Paul with certain Cabinet appoinments (he's said he'd block any attempt to appoint Bolton or Giuliani as Secretary of State, because they're massive hawks and he's a non-interventionist).

Probably the single most important--and achievable--thing they can do in the short term is pour resources into the Louisiana Senate runoff. If they can win that--and it would be an uphill battle--then they'd only need 2 Republican Senators to block any legislation, which is significantly more attainable than three, especially when you know that on many issues you'll already be able to find at least one who's said he or she will oppose it. It won't always work--executive orders, lower federal courts, reconciliation--and they won't be able to get anything of their own through (since they're nowhere close to having the House), but that's how I'd try to stem the tide.

Well, we could try to invoke Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution. in particular, the emoulement clause:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html

I wouldn't put any hope in anything like that. At this point Trump's boast about killing someone in broad daylight on 5th Avenue is seeming far less like a boast and far more like a simple statement of reality.

So I found this rather interesting video on the matter.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td5xFxiEuQQInteresting idea, and if nothing else, it's good that people are recognising that this ultra-polarised, "us vs them" approach to politics is not the way to do things. At risk of repeating myself a tad, Trump's victory could ultimately be a good thing if it teaches us all that having an actual dialogue with his supporters is a better idea than simply calling them racist and stupid. Yeah, it's probably wishful thinking that any of these oh so promising and hopeful words will ever translate into actual action, but a guy can dream, no?

How is putting a moratorium on calling Trump Supporters or Brexit supporters racist any different to insisting black people can't be racist or women can't be sexist? It's creating a protected class that we all have to treat with kid gloves lest we offend someone.

If a Trump supporter or a Brexit voter celebrates their victory by attacking minorities do we call them...something else?

Or is there an ironclad rule that we preface it with #notallXsupporters first?

How is putting a moratorium on calling Trump Supporters or Brexit supporters racist any different to insisting black people can't be racist or women can't be sexist? It's creating a protected class that we all have to treat with kid gloves lest we offend someone.

If a Trump supporter or a Brexit voter celebrates their victory by attacking minorities do we call them...something else?

Or is there an ironclad rule that we preface it with #notallXsupporters first?

That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that appealing to shame didn't work in Britain, and it didn't work here. Telling people they're racist idiots unless they vote your way is ineffective at best, counterproductive at worst.

And I'm not saying we treat them with kid gloves, just that we not generalize them.

Remember that Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment was aimed at half of Trump's supporters. The other half, she correctly noted, were people who were pissed off about the economy. (A good chunk of that was people being pissed off at policies her husband had put in place, like NAFTA or the repeal of Glass-Steagall, but she was still right that they were angry because of the economy, not because the blacks and hispanics and Muslims and Asians are raping, killing, and stealing from good white folk and the women are getting uppity and not staying in the kitchen and the gays are shoving their agendas down our throats.)

How is putting a moratorium on calling Trump Supporters or Brexit supporters racist any different to insisting black people can't be racist or women can't be sexist? It's creating a protected class that we all have to treat with kid gloves lest we offend someone.

If a Trump supporter or a Brexit voter celebrates their victory by attacking minorities do we call them...something else?

Or is there an ironclad rule that we preface it with #notallXsupporters first?

Where did I say anything about treating them with kid gloves? It pisses me off that we're all expected to do that for religion. I'd never argue we should coddle right wingers in the same manner. In fact, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that "a dialogue" with one's political opponents means a discussion or debate of some kind. You know, which involves at certain points telling them where they're wrong and why they're wrong in as much detail as possible. This of course includes any issues on which you feel they're wrong, racism included.

All I'm saying is doing nothing but hurling insults at them is quite possibly the worst way to go about it. Not because I'm personally offended on the poor little darling's behalf, but because that's probably the worst thing you can do in terms of winning hearts and minds, which is really what an election is all about. If you attack and alienate people instead of trying to talk to and persuade them, how the fuck do think they're going to vote come election day?

Or, you know, we could just stay or course, or perhaps even go full Niam. I'm sure that won't lead to another four years of President Trump or anything, and some other far right lunatic after that, no, not at all.

That's true for political parties, for sure but if some Trump supporter jumps into a leftie thread and barfs "suck it byatches, your spook in chief is gone and your byatch is bleeding from her whateva" are said lefties under any obligation to hold back on those hurtful accusations of bigotry?

In any case Clinton went to great pains to talk about the Trump voters who weren't Deplorables but merely justifiably worried about their economic and social prospects. Fox News, Brietbart, Heat St et al filtered that into "SNOOTY McSNOOT CALLS Y'ALL DEPLORABLE!!!"

That's true for political parties, for sure but if some Trump supporter jumps into a leftie thread and barfs "suck it byatches, your spook in chief is gone and your byatch is bleeding from her whateva" are said lefties under any obligation to hold back on those hurtful accusations of bigotry?

I'm tad surprised that I have to explain this, but okay. Obviously, meaningful discussion is a two way street. It does require the other party to be willing to argue in good faith, and therefore it excludes individuals like internet trolls. Unless you're arguing that every Trump supporter or indeed right winger in general is on the same level as an internet troll, I'm not too sure how this is relevant.

Also, I thought I was quite clear in that I'm not against accusing bigots of bigotry. Like I said, telling your opponent that they're wrong and explaining why they're wrong as thoroughly as you possibly can is an important part of a political discussion. This goes for bigotry as much as any other issue.

In any case Clinton went to great pains to talk about the Trump voters who weren't Deplorables but merely justifiably worried about their economic and social prospects. Fox News, Brietbart, Heat St et al filtered that into "SNOOTY McSNOOT CALLS Y'ALL DEPLORABLE!!!"

That said, noting that racism is a factor in politics or noting that a politician is using dog-whistle racist signalling to their constituents is not the same as saying said constituents are just a bunch of racists. Sometimes it's just a fair analysis of what"s going on.

That said, noting that racism is a factor in politics or noting that a politician is using dog-whistle racist signalling to their constituents is not the same as saying said constituents are just a bunch of racists. Sometimes it's just a fair analysis of what"s going on.

Exactly. In fact, my overall point is essentially that the former is far more useful and productive than the latter.

Well, Trumps a heck of a lot better so far at keeping his promises to his just plain racist constituents than his struggling middle and working class voters.

The Alt-Right's own Bannon cosying up to the prez as chief strategist, Sessions-a guy who's federal judgeship was knocked back because of his less than friendly attitude towards civil rights (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/trumps-pick-for-attorney-general-foreshadows-a-civil-rights-rollback/508172/) is his attorney general pick, his pick for national security adviser Flynn is a conspiracy theorist who thinks fear of Muslims is rational (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/11/18/trumps-new-national-security-adviser-has-said-some-incendiary-things-on-the-internet/).

I mean it hasn't all been white roses for the 8chan crowd, when they ran around screaming "hail victory" in their stubble-cuts in front of eager camera-snapping journos even Trump had to say he disavowed them. Still, he's been better at keeping his promises to the racist chan freaks than the struggling rust-belters thus far.

I mean it hasn't all been white roses for the 8chan crowd, when they ran around screaming "hail victory" in their stubble-cuts in front of eager camera-snapping journos even Trump had to say he disavowed them. Still, he's been better at keeping his promises to the racist chan freaks than the struggling rust-belters thus far.

Trumps only allegiance is to himself. He cares more about how the presidency well effect his business than his plans for the country. So far he's made no efforts to cut his ties to his business or set up blind trusts. In the end I think he's going to end up upsetting everyone that voted for him. Seeing that he's now flipping on a lot of his campaign promises. Or that a lot of his grandiose promises are most likely not going to happen because of congress. He's about to find out how powerful Congress is. Which means that either Trumps supporters start voting out current congressman for more alt-righters, or angry Bernie supporters start voting in more progressive congressman. Judging from history when a party gets all of the power they don't usually hold onto it for long.

Well, Trumps a heck of a lot better so far at keeping his promises to his just plain racist constituents than his struggling middle and working class voters.

The Alt-Right's own Bannon cosying up to the prez as chief strategist, Sessions-a guy who's federal judgeship was knocked back because of his less than friendly attitude towards civil rights (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/trumps-pick-for-attorney-general-foreshadows-a-civil-rights-rollback/508172/) is his attorney general pick, his pick for national security adviser Flynn is a conspiracy theorist who thinks fear of Muslims is rational (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/11/18/trumps-new-national-security-adviser-has-said-some-incendiary-things-on-the-internet/).

I mean it hasn't all been white roses for the 8chan crowd, when they ran around screaming "hail victory" in their stubble-cuts in front of eager camera-snapping journos even Trump had to say he disavowed them. Still, he's been better at keeping his promises to the racist chan freaks than the struggling rust-belters thus far.

If this is the case, then it looks like he'll be a one-term president, if that. He can't win with the bigot vote alone.

...Oh wait, which team did that? Because it only counts when the other side is doing it. (Sadly both parties act that way in USA and that's one of the reasons why things stay so bad.)

Still, I wonder what the result of the possible recount would be? I didn't think that Hillary could catch up to Donald even if there had been some vote but if just a cursory look can uncover something like this maybe there's more?

EDIT: and another source for the same story: http://wbay.com/2016/11/22/discrepancies-in-unofficial-outagamie-county-election-results-explained/

Jill Stien is working on the money to get a recount started. If this happens, the results of the election might change.

Ironbite-and we won't be in Darkest Timeline.

That's a slim hope at best. I think she's focused solely on Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (she should also look at Florida and maybe also North Carolina), and all three of those states would have to flip to make Clinton the winner. They're all close, but I can't see all of them flipping as the result of recounts. (Which is why I'd look at more states.)

Well, she says that the intention is not to flip the election but make sure people can trust that the voting system is reliable.

Edit: If I've understood correctly the recount must be initiated by the Clinton campaign. Stein is just trying to collect the funds for the process - lawyers' fees and the recount costs.

I wouldn't think it would have to be. Stein was a candidate herself, and she claims to have evidence that the voting systems were manipulated. That should be enough--but then I'm not an expert on US election law, especially since every state does its own thing with different rules.

Well, she says that the intention is not to flip the election but make sure people can trust that the voting system is reliable.

Edit: If I've understood correctly the recount must be initiated by the Clinton campaign. Stein is just trying to collect the funds for the process - lawyers' fees and the recount costs.

I wouldn't think it would have to be. Stein was a candidate herself, and she claims to have evidence that the voting systems were manipulated. That should be enough--but then I'm not an expert on US election law, especially since every state does its own thing with different rules.

Okay. The story I read about it said she is collecting the money and has been in contact with Podesta about the issue. Then it went on to discuss the deadlines for Clinton to file a complaint in each of the states instead of discussing a possibility of Stein filing it herself. That's just one story, though, so I put the qualification of uncertainty in my post.

Well, she says that the intention is not to flip the election but make sure people can trust that the voting system is reliable.

Edit: If I've understood correctly the recount must be initiated by the Clinton campaign. Stein is just trying to collect the funds for the process - lawyers' fees and the recount costs.

I wouldn't think it would have to be. Stein was a candidate herself, and she claims to have evidence that the voting systems were manipulated. That should be enough--but then I'm not an expert on US election law, especially since every state does its own thing with different rules.

Okay. The story I read about it said she is collecting the money and has been in contact with Podesta about the issue. Then it went on to discuss the deadlines for Clinton to file a complaint in each of the states instead of discussing a possibility of Stein filing it herself. That's just one story, though, so I put the qualification of uncertainty in my post.

Maybe the rules are different for Clinton because her share of the vote was higher than Stein's. (They do that with stuff like getting on the ballot--candidates/parties that got a sufficiently high share of the vote in the last election often face reduced requirements, if they aren't automatically requalified.)

So now Trump is saying that he won the popular vote because, and get this, the nearly 2 million votes that Hillary won over Trump are fraudulent and illegal. Without any proof or sources to help his claim. We're just supposed to believe it because he said it. Because in no way could that orange piece of shit be the least popular candidate, right? This is the man who's going to be running our country folks. Someone who can't lose at something without being a fucking baby about it. A man who would go to conspiracy fake news sites to get his information.The worst part about it is that the Trumpets will buy any lie he says. And he's told a lot of lies.

But they aren't the majority of the country. He just won some strategically placed states. Which....might not be his actually. Recount is going to go underway and if Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania flip, he loses. I'm not expecting anything to change but that's why he's bitching.

Ironbite-especially after it was found out that 5000 votes in Wisconsin didn't actually exist for him.

Wouldn't that be fucking hilarious if that happened, though? Like, all the Trumpers are sitting around celebrating, then the recount shows that "lolnope, Hil-dog actually won, so guess what happens NOW, fucksticks?" Unlikely, but hey, a man can dream.

Oh I know. I'm not even clinging to the slightest bit of hope this will do anything. I just want to thank Jill Stein of all people of being politically savvy enough to ruffle his feathers on this. Also he's blasting Clinton for participating in this saying "SHE GAVE UP! I WON! WHY IS SHE DOING THIS!" and stomping around Trump Tower all red faced and angry because he's not getting his way.

Ms. Jones, the film colleague, said that in their years working together, [Steve] Bannon occasionally talked about the genetic superiority of some people and once mused about the desirability of limiting the vote to property owners.

One thing is certain though. If Trump doesn't become the next elected president there will be blood on the streets as his cultists grab their guns.

Because to them it would be the final proof that Hillary is "stealing" the elections.

What's actually certain is that the next president after Trump will have to deal with a system crafted by and for Republicans even if Trump crashes and burns in ignominy and shame.

The Repugs had their eye on the supreme court, having effectively locked it down during Obama's final year they'll now put in hardline conservatives, hardline conservatives who'll crack down on union organizing, abortion, civil rights and net neutrality for at least a generation. This puts the Democrats in a hard position as even if they wanted to appeal to the white working class, clamping down on union organizing will probably cut off their most direct route to do just that.

Maybe he'll refuse to move into the White house and instead will rule from the Trump tower?

He's already saying he'll spend weekends at the New York Trump Tower.

He's also got a hotel in DC, and foreign dignitaries have said that they'd stay there to curry favour with Trump. Except that this violates a certain clause...

Quote

And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Like I said earlier, Trump's no more in favor of free speech than the PC crowd. And considering this comment, I think he's against it even more than them. Outright calling for the government to punish expression? That's setting off alarm bells for me.

But on the other hand, at least it's easier to deal with government censorship. So I'm kind of torn about who's worse.

The top 0.1% of households in the US (top 0.1%, not top 5% or top 1%, top 0.1%) currently have almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. The last time that happened was in the run-up to the Great Depression.

When did the gap grow in favour of the bottom 90%? When the New Deal was in effect, the "Golden Age of Economic Expansion". Strict banking regulations, strong unions, high top marginal tax rates, high corporate tax rates...

When did it begin to decline? When Reaganomics fully kicked in, followed by the policies of Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama.

The US is heading for a crash that will make 2008 look like a love tap.

...But the person chosen to replace Sisneros has to vote for Trump anyway am I right? So this doesn't really change anything, it's just one more person protesting against Trump.

Nope, nothing in Texas law obligates electors to vote for any particular person.

Sisneros resigned because he felt he could not in good conscience vote for Trump or vote for someone else after having pledged to the Texas Republican Party to vote for Trump (or maybe the eventual nominee, I'm not sure exactly when Texas parties choose their electors). The only choice he felt was left to him was to resign.

I think there's only two or three states that punish faithless votes with a null vote, the rest usually just go with fines, but ultimately don't change the vote after its been cast.

While this has yet to sway a Presidential election, there is historical precedent for entire states turning against their assigned vote; Virginia did so in 1836 (I believe) against their pledged party's VP candidate.

TL;DR Ever since Nixon no one in USA has been allowed to act as if Taiwan exists because China says so and US relations with China have been deemed more important than the independence of one random nation. Trump instead called the Taiwanese pro-independence president to congratulate her (and possibly to promote his businesses in Taiwan) thus ruining decades of diplomatic work with between two world powers.

How strange. For all my loathing for him, I must say I admire the sheer gall of that move.

I think it had nothing to do with gall and everything to do with stupidity, like when he also recently called Pakistanis "tremendous" in a phone conversation with the President of Pakistan. This, of course, prompted a reply from India, which is probably a rather more important ally than Pakistan.

I highly doubt he did it out of gall. More likely he did it out of a combination of stupidity, greed, ignorance and a lack of caring. Until it is proven otherwise, I will continue to say that Trump neither knows nor cares about how to do the job of the President.

Edit: while the abrupt change in foreign policy towards appeasement with Russia and saber-rattling against China matches surprisingly well with Oceania's, the American society still has a long way to go to become outright Orwellian. It's just a funny coincidence, really. I'm aware I'm ruining the joke by explaining it, but since several of my comments have already been interpreted in a more extreme/literal way than I intended them to be, better safe than sorry.

At least China is not angry enough to say it out loud. They are saying that Trump was just tricked by Taiwan. ...Which is another way to say that they don't think he means anything bad, he's just an idiot is the way they took it.

Honestly, I'd make it a federal law that if the difference between the top 2 for any federal office (including electors for President) is less than 1% of the total votes cast, there's an automatic recount, overseen by judges, costs paid by the federal government, which cannot be interrupted, challenged, or stopped for any reason barring natural disasters, and mandate paper trails for all voting machines (or, better, that voting machines used for federal elections read voter-marked paper ballots, not just print off a paper receipt). (Up here the federal threshold is 0.1%, and, yes, I'd make that 1%, too.)

* Jill Stein went on TYT for an online forum. She proceeded to praise Assange and Vladimir Putin, and said if she became President she would pardon Assange or something.* Stein has also gone on record saying she considers Trump's foreign policy less scary...because he wants to work with Russia.* has also said that Hillary is less dangerous than Donald Trump extrapolating from the above.* Assange for his part saw a fellow in her and said attacks on her would go "through the roof".* She showed up on Russia's propaganda outlet RT - also seen in the same clip is Michael Flynn, who really needs no new intro - and what's more sat at the head table with Putin himself.

Honestly, I'd make it a federal law that if the difference between the top 2 for any federal office (including electors for President) is less than 1% of the total votes cast, there's an automatic recount, overseen by judges, costs paid by the federal government, which cannot be interrupted, challenged, or stopped for any reason barring natural disasters, and mandate paper trails for all voting machines (or, better, that voting machines used for federal elections read voter-marked paper ballots, not just print off a paper receipt). (Up here the federal threshold is 0.1%, and, yes, I'd make that 1%, too.)

Your proposed law violates basic precepts of federalism, and is unconstitutional.

Honestly, I'd make it a federal law that if the difference between the top 2 for any federal office (including electors for President) is less than 1% of the total votes cast, there's an automatic recount, overseen by judges, costs paid by the federal government, which cannot be interrupted, challenged, or stopped for any reason barring natural disasters, and mandate paper trails for all voting machines (or, better, that voting machines used for federal elections read voter-marked paper ballots, not just print off a paper receipt). (Up here the federal threshold is 0.1%, and, yes, I'd make that 1%, too.)

Your proposed law violates basic precepts of federalism, and is unconstitutional.

That's fair. I think it would make elections fairer, but I can see how it is ultra vires the federal government. Still, there could be the "bribe them to do it" approach (or the "withhold highway funding" approach--as I recall that's how the federal government got the drinking age raised to 21 in every state).

However, I would note that it doesn't necessarily violate basic precepts of federalism, only US-style federalism (up here the federal governments regulates its own elections, for instance, and Canada is most definitely federal*), and constitutions can be amended.

*If you want to object that Canada leaves residual powers to the federal government, not the provinces, then I would note, for one, that provinces also regulate their own elections, and for another, that in Australia, which is also federal, residual powers are left to the states, not the federal government**, and the federal government, rather than the states, regulates federal elections.

**This is why the gun ban in Australia is achieved through coordinating state and territorial legislation, rather than federal legislation. The Australian government has no authority to regulate firearms.

My proposal may well violate the precepts of the federal system to which you're accustomed, but it most definitely does not violate the "basic precepts of federalism," because the particulars of an implementation of the concept of federalism that are not shared across all systems implementing it (as this one is not) cannot, by definition, be "basic precepts."

I should point out that Person of the Year is not necessarily an endorsement nor a condemnation. It is given to the person that Time thinks had the most historic impact of the year. And, yeah, I'd say that would be Trump.

Took a gander at Wikipedia's page on Trump's 2000 presidential bid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2000). Makes for interesting reading.

For instance, Trump campaigned for universal health care, named Oprah Winfrey as his ideal running mate and called Pat Buchanan a "Hitler Lover".

I wonder if he really believes in anything, aside from making a quick exit with pockets full of suckers money that is.

I've recommended the book "The Authoritarians" before, but it explains the phenomenon. In essence, Trump is a social dominator who enjoys the power that comes from controlling others. These people really don't care much for policy or consistency, because it gets in the way of power, which they want. They are very likely to flip-flop because, again, power is more important to them than policy... That is until they get elected, then they just do whatever the fuck they want, because again, power!

If what I just said scares you, it should. You should be terrified. I mean shitting your pants scared. This book was written almost a decade ago, and it describes Trump, his followers, the increase in violence, and so many things we're seeing right now to a T.

Well fortunately the constitution doesn't allow Trump to become a dictator of the country. Political parties don't hang onto absolute power for long and I forsee a large gain of democrats in the house in senate in 2018. Mainly because history repeats itself.

Well fortunately the constitution doesn't allow Trump to become a dictator of the country. Political parties don't hang onto absolute power for long and I forsee a large gain of democrats in the house in senate in 2018. Mainly because history repeats itself.

The House is gerrymandered all to hell, and it'll be even worse since the Voting Rights Act has been disemboweled (not that I'd expect any Justice Department headed by Jeff Sessions to enforce the VRA however strong its provisions might be). And the Senate map for 2018 has a huge number of Democratic incumbents, making it very difficult for them to make gains and very likely that they will lose seats.

For instance, do you really think the Dems could pick off any of Arizona, Mississippi, Nebraska, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, or Wyoming? That leaves only Nevada as being vulnerable on the Republican side, while on the Democratic side Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia are all vulnerable. Given the 2016 election, I could even see them threatened in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

The anti-Trump backlash would have to be amazingly strong to give the Democrats a majority in the Senate (since they'd need 2 seats even if they win the Louisiana runoff, thanks to Pence's tiebreaking vote), and I really only see one vulnerable Republican Senator. Meanwhile I see potentially twelve vulnerable Democratic Senators.

Well fortunately the constitution doesn't allow Trump to become a dictator of the country. Political parties don't hang onto absolute power for long and I forsee a large gain of democrats in the house in senate in 2018. Mainly because history repeats itself.

As a lawyer, that is pretty silly. Governments are only as strong as their institutions, which are only as strong as the norms that surround them. As George Bush is falsely accused to have said, "the Constitution is a piece of paper." The only thing really keeping Trump from trampling the Constitution is the Supreme Court, and Trump may appoint as many as three Justices, assuming he doesn't go full court-packing. That isn't even considering the federal appointments that he will make to the District Courts and Courts of Appeals, which will decide most cases (as SCoTUS has discretionary review). Then there is also the Jackson problem of "the Court made their decision, let them enforce it." In essence, I think it is the greatest example of American exceptionalism to think that we cannot fall prey to totalitarian regimes. None of this is to say that Trump absolutely will bring about totalitarianism, but to say that if you play with fire enough, eventually you will get burned. And this is the closest we have come to a totalitarian leader in our nation's history.

Also, the Weimar Republic had one of the most liberal and pro-civil rights constitutions of its time... and look what happened to it.

The problem with assuming the constitution will prevent Trump and the Republican controlled (despite a 9-13% approval rating, just to show how fucked the system is) congress from going full on fascist is that that requires the checks and balances the system was designed to have to be working as intended. As it stands, within four years, there is a VERY good chance, I'd say more likely than not, that the entire federal government and the majority of state level governments will be under Republican control. The checks and balances are gone. We're in for a very rough probably four and likely eight years.

The problem with assuming the constitution will prevent Trump and the Republican controlled (despite a 9-13% approval rating, just to show how fucked the system is) congress from going full on fascist is that that requires the checks and balances the system was designed to have to be working as intended. As it stands, within four years, there is a VERY good chance, I'd say more likely than not, that the entire federal government and the majority of state level governments will be under Republican control. The checks and balances are gone. We're in for a very rough probably four and likely eight years.

Very good chance?

The Republicans control the Presidency. They control the House of Representatives. They control the Senate. They control the Governorship and both houses of the state legislature (the lone house for Nebraska) in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. They will control at least one of those bodies in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.

And get two thirds of both parts of Congress to ratify it, which is borderline impossible. Plus, the people can petition their state governments to pass another Amendment to undo it which, again, would require a two thirds majority in the resultant convention.

Trump won't take over and become our new emperor. That's fearmongering bullshit and not how the god damned government works. He'll be another Bush, Jr. and that's going to be pretty much it.

They also legalized torture in USA and kidnapped people without a trial. I find it sad that USA still hasn't done anything about that bit.

We really can't do anything about it. The people who care have no power and the people with power seem to have no problem with it. We could maybe elect representatives who will promise to, idk, close down Gitmo. But really it'd be up to them to keep their promise.

Unfortunately, its not quite that simple. Gitmo has several people that went in with no trial and with little cause. Releasing them would require to admitting to ruining the lives of several people; any administration that did it would bear the brunt of the backlash and significantly harm their chances of reelection.

Unfortunately, its not quite that simple. Gitmo has several people that went in with no trial and with little cause. Releasing them would require to admitting to ruining the lives of several people; any administration that did it would bear the brunt of the backlash and significantly harm their chances of reelection.

...And once again USA is going to ignore the horrible stuff they did because they don't want to admit that they do horrible stuff.

And saying "but the politicians don't care about it" only matters if you live in a country where the voters don't get to pick the politicians.

Unfortunately, its not quite that simple. Gitmo has several people that went in with no trial and with little cause. Releasing them would require to admitting to ruining the lives of several people; any administration that did it would bear the brunt of the backlash and significantly harm their chances of reelection.

...And once again USA is going to ignore the horrible stuff they did because they don't want to admit that they do horrible stuff.

And saying "but the politicians don't care about it" only matters if you live in a country where the voters don't get to pick the politicians.

>Implying the voters still pick the politicians in America

In all seriousness, I'm not sure how much real power the voters still have. Look at all the influence big corporations, the media, and special interest groups have over the government.

I don't, I know it's an outsiders view but the US isn't a democracy. It's an oligarchy (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746). It's why the Dems ignored working class voters and the Repugs used them with cheerful cynicism.

Right now one oligarchy faction has chosen a dangerous clown as their public face, it doesn't mean they'll let him be their God emperor. He's merely useful to them right now. If he ceases to be useful, like Nixon they'll toss him under the bus.

None of this means that the symptoms of fascism or dictatorship can't take place. Attacks on civil rights, attacks on the press, attacks on voting rights. Police brutality and the use of military tactics to quash dissent. All of this is already happening. It's worth remembering that under the legal framework that Americans still have Japanese internment happened, death squads (the original KKK) happened, Joseph McCarthy's Un American Activities committee happened and yes, government sanction of torture and invasion of sovereign states on the flimsiest of pretexts happened.

What I find interesting about the history of Fascism is that people remember the strongmen themselves but not the oligarchs standing behind them. It's worth remembering that Mussolini's march on Rome was an attempt to quash socialist opposition and a general strike. Strongmen are the cudgel of the ruling classes, they're pulled out when public anger towards them gets particularly acute. That's the time to divide and rule that anger, rally some of it behind them and squish the remainder for "disloyalty", "being unpatriotic" or whatever.

I don't, I know it's an outsiders view but the US isn't a democracy. It's an oligarchy (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746). It's why the Dems ignored working class voters and the Repugs used them with cheerful cynicism.

Right now one oligarchy faction has chosen a dangerous clown as their public face, it doesn't mean they'll let him be their God emperor. He's merely useful to them right now. If he ceases to be useful, like Nixon they'll toss him under the bus.

None of this means that the symptoms of fascism or dictatorship can't take place. Attacks on civil rights, attacks on the press, attacks on voting rights. Police brutality and the use of military tactics to quash dissent. All of this is already happening. It's worth remembering that under the legal framework that Americans still have Japanese internment happened, death squads (the original KKK) happened, Joseph McCarthy's Un American Activities committee happened and yes, government sanction of torture and invasion of sovereign states on the flimsiest of pretexts happened.

What I find interesting about the history of Fascism is that people remember the strongmen themselves but not the oligarchs standing behind them. It's worth remembering that Mussolini's march on Rome was an attempt to quash socialist opposition and a general strike. Strongmen are the cudgel of the ruling classes, they're pulled out when public anger towards them gets particularly acute. That's the time to divide and rule that anger, rally some of it behind them and squish the remainder for "disloyalty", "being unpatriotic" or whatever.

You're assuming Trump is a friend of "the oligarchy". Not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that it's a bit early to judge. He's not even in office yet.

You're assuming Trump is a friend of "the oligarchy". Not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that it's a bit early to judge. He's not even in office yet.

Trump is as literal an avatar of an oligarch as you can get, he's a lot closer to that than a Fascist. Trump believes in Trump, Trump thinks he's entitled to women's pussies, the United States of America and the adoration of all because he's rich. He named his company Scion FFS. A Scion is a lineal descendant of someone who inherits wealth and power.

Keep in mind Hitler himself made it clear his Nazi Party was a friend of big business and would not fundamentally change Germany.

Take a look at how that went.

The powerful political people of Germany thought they could control and use Hitler as a public face to enrich themselves. Instead, Hitler proceeded to concentrate power entirely within the position he held, gave the SS a monopoly on force within the state, and made it so businesses could only stay as long as they served him, otherwise their leadership went away and was replaced by Nazi Yes-Men.

We have to be careful about this.

Trump has powerful tools at his disposal, such as the "PATRIOT" Act, and a number of defense bills we only tentatively trusted Obama with. The Nazis could not win the popular vote - they got a tiny percentage and got as far as they did on a concession. Trump's people got him into office without the concession.

I don't say this to say Trump literally is Hitler. I'm saying he embodies many of the same disturbed forces Hitler embodied, and has advantages and power even the German Fuhrer did not have. Call him a clown, but remember that clowns can be very frightening indeed if given the proper utencils.

I'm not too worried about that and am more worried about Trump choosing exxon mobil CEO as secretary of state. A man who has no government or foreign policy experience. By drain the swamp I guess Trump meant get rid of anyone that might have an inkling of what they're doing and putting all of his rich friends or people who said nice things about him in power.

I'm not too worried about that and am more worried about Trump choosing exxon mobil CEO as secretary of state. A man who has no government or foreign policy experience. By drain the swamp I guess Trump meant get rid of anyone that might have an inkling of what they're doing and putting all of his rich friends or people who said nice things about him in power.

Oh, I agree. That's way more concerning.

But seriously, her first speech since the election and it's about (further) restraining civil liberties? Not about how every single one of Trump's announced cabinet appointments is horrible? Not about how his policy proposals are going to devastate the middle and working classes for the benefit of the rich? Not a mea culpa about misreading the electorate and taking fucktons of donor money, or choosing Kaine instead of someone like Warren as a running mate, or campaigning on identity politics and naughty language instead of the issues? (To quote a certain former president, "It's the economy, stupid.")

A certain Ludacris song describes exactly what the Democratic establishment has to do now.

Cracking down on fake news is not totalitarian. Censoring people before they have said anything is but if they have repeatedly said something that is illegal or in this case propaganda to fool people then shutting them up is ok. At least that is how Finland treats the freedom of speech and even if the laws in USA are different it still doesn't mean that any deviation from the US way automatically makes you into a Commie-Nazi.

Cracking down on fake news is not totalitarian. Censoring people before they have said anything is but if they have repeatedly said something that is illegal or in this case propaganda to fool people then shutting them up is ok. At least that is how Finland treats the freedom of speech and even if the laws in USA are different it still doesn't mean that any deviation from the US way automatically makes you into a Commie-Nazi.

The problem is, who decides what's fake? If you want to sue for libel after the fact, OK, but the impression I got was that she was arguing that somebody should step in before stories like the "Pizzagate" nonsense ever see the light of day.

In my opinion, nonsense like that should in all honesty be called the utter tripe it is and forced out of focus by the media.

However it appears Clinton said something you deemed unfavorable, thus in a topic about a potentially very dangerous fascist you felt compelled to bring up Clinton (again) as if what she did was somehow equal to something Trump is out to do.

In my opinion, nonsense like that should in all honesty be called the utter tripe it is and forced out of focus by the media.

However it appears Clinton said something you deemed unfavorable, thus in a topic about a potentially very dangerous fascist you felt compelled to bring up Clinton (again) as if what she did was somehow equal to something Trump is out to do.

...Why?

Because she should be calling that dangerous fascist what he is and calling him out for his terrible policy proposals and appointees, not calling for unconstitutional laws. It speaks very ill of her that she should lose to a joke like Trump, go away for a month, then come back, pretending as if she has any remaining claim to relevancy, and say something like this that proves she doesn't rather than giving a speech on important matters.

You are talking about Clinton, right? aka the candidate who won the popular vote in a fucking landslide, right?

Because that doesn't sound like you read that particular memo...

She won the popular vote, yes, but lost states that Democratic candidates hadn't lost in almost thirty years. (Bush Sr. was the last Republican to take Michigan or Pennsylvania, and Reagan was the last one to take Wisconsin.) Her wing of the Democratic Party fell out of touch with what voters in those states think, and they remember all too well that it was Bill Clinton who did NAFTA and Hillary Clinton who called the TPP "the gold standard." As far as many of them are concerned, NAFTA shipped half their jobs out of the country and TPP would do for the other half, and they were not going to vote for someone who supported NAFTA and flip-flopped on the TPP.

She lost the Rust Belt, probably also costing the Democrats the Senate since Wisconsin and Pennsylvania had Republican incumbents, and if the Democratic Party has any designs on getting back into power, they need to ditch the corporatist wing of the party that can't credibly speak to those voters. Hillary Clinton, at this point, is to many voters the personification of that part of the Democratic Party, and as such for the party to have any hope she has to go away. Her clinging onto relevance only hurts the party at this point.

I have started seeing a meme on the net claiming that Jill Stein's recount discovered voter fraud by the Democrats. But most websites that talk about the recount say that there has been no evidence of fraud. Are sites like this one reliable? http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/jill-stein-recount-finds-voter-fraud-hillary-supporters/

I have started seeing a meme on the net claiming that Jill Stein's recount discovered voter fraud by the Democrats. But most websites that talk about the recount say that there has been no evidence of fraud. Are sites like this one reliable? http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/jill-stein-recount-finds-voter-fraud-hillary-supporters/

I usually go with a good rule of thumb: if the website refers to the liberal, currently minority part of the USA as the "Democrat Party", they're probably not a reliable source.

I have started seeing a meme on the net claiming that Jill Stein's recount discovered voter fraud by the Democrats. But most websites that talk about the recount say that there has been no evidence of fraud. Are sites like this one reliable? http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/jill-stein-recount-finds-voter-fraud-hillary-supporters/

When it comes to accusations like this, I'd advise skepticism. Be willing to look at the evidence, if the source provides it, but don't just assume they're guilty unless there's some kind of smoking gun.

And get two thirds of both parts of Congress to ratify it, which is borderline impossible. Plus, the people can petition their state governments to pass another Amendment to undo it which, again, would require a two thirds majority in the resultant convention.

Trump won't take over and become our new emperor. That's fearmongering bullshit and not how the god damned government works. He'll be another Bush, Jr. and that's going to be pretty much it.

I wanted to take a few days to think over what I was trying to say because I think you raise a very valid point. To clarify, I am speaking out of two sides of my mouth to an extent. On the one hand, I repeat my prior statement that I think it is the worst form of American exceptionalism to believe that we are somehow immune to falling prey to an authoritarian leader. We have a Constitution, but so have several European nations that fell to fascism in the 40's, and so have many modern African nations that fell prey to dictators more recently. At the end of the day, the Constitution is a piece of paper that outlines division of powers and political institutions and not some magical panacea for the preservation of democracy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SRtVWXm1p0).

On the other, Trump represents something fundamentally different than our previous presidents: he has a complete disdain for the facts, glorifies himself above all else, openly discussed curtailing civil liberties during the election season, has no policy experience, has no respect for division of powers of the institutions within government, is probably the most authoritarian president in our history, and largely got elected due to bigotry, xenophobia, and fear.

To clarify, I cannot quantify in terms of percentages the risk that Trump poses, because this is novel territory that we are treading on. That said, I think Trump represents a sort of stress test to our government, the institutions within it, and our separation of powers. He talked about religious tests for entering the United States and for citizenship, he talked about databases and registries for those same religious groups, he has repeatedly called for curtailing the freedom of the press and appears to be taken steps in that direction before elected (threatening the press off the record, threatening to remove access to press that won't say what he wants, going so long without a press conference), he has called to remove jus soli and to be allowed to strip citizens of citizenship, he has showed complete disregard for the 4-6th Amendments and the rights of the criminally accused, and he doesn't understand the divide between state and federal powers as he has several times called for things that violate the 10th Amendment, among other Constitutional provisions. All that said, while he may not be able to achieve every unconstitutional thing he wants, he will achieve some of them because our Constitution's best safeguard is the separation of powers, which is purely hypothetical today as the Republicans in Congress have no interest in standing up against him.

I have started seeing a meme on the net claiming that Jill Stein's recount discovered voter fraud by the Democrats. But most websites that talk about the recount say that there has been no evidence of fraud. Are sites like this one reliable? http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/jill-stein-recount-finds-voter-fraud-hillary-supporters/

I usually go with a good rule of thumb: if the website refers to the liberal, currently minority part of the USA as the "Democrat Party", they're probably not a reliable source.

You are talking about Clinton, right? aka the candidate who won the popular vote in a fucking landslide, right?

Because that doesn't sound like you read that particular memo...

She won the popular vote, yes, but lost states that Democratic candidates hadn't lost in almost thirty years. (Bush Sr. was the last Republican to take Michigan or Pennsylvania, and Reagan was the last one to take Wisconsin.) Her wing of the Democratic Party fell out of touch with what voters in those states think, and they remember all too well that it was Bill Clinton who did NAFTA and Hillary Clinton who called the TPP "the gold standard." As far as many of them are concerned, NAFTA shipped half their jobs out of the country and TPP would do for the other half, and they were not going to vote for someone who supported NAFTA and flip-flopped on the TPP.

She lost the Rust Belt, probably also costing the Democrats the Senate since Wisconsin and Pennsylvania had Republican incumbents, and if the Democratic Party has any designs on getting back into power, they need to ditch the corporatist wing of the party that can't credibly speak to those voters. Hillary Clinton, at this point, is to many voters the personification of that part of the Democratic Party, and as such for the party to have any hope she has to go away. Her clinging onto relevance only hurts the party at this point.

She lost those states because they have a high level of uneducated, white voters. If you take a chance to read The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer, you will see that those people are most susceptible to voting for an authoritarian wanker like Trump (hence why I remain skeptical that they'd vote Bernie over Trump). Also, just because they believe that free trade killed their jobs does not make it so: the CBO did a study in 2003 that found its effect on jobs was negligible while growing the economy by about 3%. What is more, if you look at when most of those jobs were lost, it was following NAFTA, but after the dot-com bubble burst, indicating that free trade is not the jobs killer that so many idiots like to make it out to be.

Further, if Bernie were the nom, while he probably would've won Wisconsin and Michigan, maybe Pennsylvania to a lesser degree of certainty, he would've handily lost Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona. He also probably would have lost Virginia, Nevada, and Ohio, meaning that Trump would still likely hit 270. The trade off was that Bernie did better with whites, but he did not do as well with Hillary's more racially diverse electorate that make up a sizeable population in each of the six states listed. And, if the Superdelegates took the election from Hillary, whom most of them voted for, I can only imagine them feeling pissed that the Supers stole the nomination from their candidate in favor of the White-Man's candidate (as women, racial minorities, and maybe even LGBTQ voters went Hillary, the last one being that the only poll I looked up on LGBTQ voters showed a close race in March, with them favoring Hillary). This circular firing squad that certain Democrats are trying to create, calling to end things like "political correctness" and "identity politics" (as you have done and as Bernie has done) in favor of catering to uneducated whites who don't know the fucking cause of their problems is asinine as it won't win any elections, but it will throw away the larger voting blocs that the Democrats have relied on for almost half a century. Not to mention that "political correctness" caused Pat McCrory to lose North Carolina after trying his whole transgender bathroom bullshit. Tangentially, it is also worth noting that in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, Bernie or Bust got Jill Stein more votes than the difference between Hillary and Trump.

Truth be told, I'm really over you going after Hillary like a dog chasing a car. She lost, it sucks, but give her a break dude. Cracking down on fake news is not a threat to the first amendment as the two are easily distinguishable. And her weakness was not due to being "establishment" or "corporate" (facts indicate she's not nearly as corporate as people like to believe, but I've posted those articles almost a dozen times now) and the selective call for purity with regards to Clinton (but not say, Obama 4 or 8 years ago) for her corporate ties is sexism, plain and simple.* Her weakness was due to a lack of trust, which was borne of 30 years Conservative media smears, two dozen Congressional investigations totaling almost $250 million by the GOP, and good ole fashion sexism, all of which Bernie was more than happy to fan the flames of during the primaries. The Comey letter played on this weakness in the waning days of the election, and as FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver has said, if not for the Comey Letter, Clinton would be president-elect today. Seriously dude, give it a break.

*Now, that is not to say that every individual who has a problem with Clinton's corporate ties is a sexist. However, if those people did not have a problem with Obama's corporate ties (not today, four and eight years ago when he ran), or didn't care enough about the issue to research it and educate themselves, then I have no problem saying that they are sexist. That is also not to say that you could not favor Bernie for having fewer corporate ties, but to hark on it as some sort of disqualifier or big knock against her (yet not Obama) is.

I partly agree with dpareja. People just don't like Hillary Clinton. I'm not her biggest fan for a few reasons and those reasons are part of why I was squarely in the Sanders camp and I do feel like the Democrats could have found a more likable candidate, but I also believe that the vast majority of the reasons people dislike her are utter horseshit. Remember that we just had an election cycle where the media spent the better part of two years constantly reporting on a manufactured and politically motivated e-mail scandal.

My reasons for disliking Clinton are things like despising the idea of legacy presidency and disliking her corporate ties (disclaimer: I had this same problem with Obama, but fully believe that, at worst, a Hillary Clinton presidency would be basically four more years of Obama, which isn't a bad thing). She isn't even near HALF as bad as people think she is, let alone the meme perpetuated by the idiots that still think Clinton would be just as bad as Trump. However, regardless of how things are in actuality, the appearance is that Hillary Clinton is a warmonger, quick to change her views when politically convenient, corrupted by corporate interests, out of touch with the people and thinks she is entitled to become president (this, I almost agree with, but I can't say for certain if I think it's the reality).

However, I stand by my opinion that there isn't a simple reason Clinton lost, but rather numerous reasons. The media has been an absolute embarrassment for the last two years, treating Trump with kid gloves, while constantly harping on Clinton's fucking e-mails, there is a demonstrable trend among Trump supporters to be racists or sexists emboldened by Trump's complete disinterest in calling them out on their bullshit, the Bernie or Busters that voted Johnson (oh, the irony) or Stein because of worthless principle, the rigged primary conspiracy the same still try to cling to (and this is coming from someone who thinks the DNC did have a bias against Sanders, even if the conspiracy is pure tinfoil hat territory).

But let's also address Sanders. Do I think he would have won had he won the primary? Honestly, as Sanders himself has put it, it doesn't matter. It's pointless to cry about what could have been. Sanders was behind in the popular vote from day one and he couldn't get the black or latino vote, who were squarely in the Clinton camp from the beginning. While it may make for an interesting thought experiment someday, right now, the focus needs to be on what can be done to minimize the damage Trump and the entirely Republican controlled federal government, not just can, but WILL do.

Because I'm still not done beating the dead horse of the democrats' circular firing squad regarding "political correctness" and "identity politics," (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-trump-won-because-people-are-tired-of-politically-correct-rhetoric/) it turns out Hillary did not focus her campaign on either, but focused mainly on jobs and the economy (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech). You know, that nice little thing that those white people in the midwest cared about. In fact, she talked about jobs six times as often as she did Muslims, which was her most talked about political identity.The article also analyzes words used to describe both Trump and Clinton in the media, and found out that most of Trump's coverage focused on policy whereas Clinton's focused on dishonesty and corruption.

And if you dig into Trump's tweets, as I've had the misfortune of doing, you'll notice that this is a trend. He says one or two things that are stupid, irrelevant, or even offensive (to people who already don't like him), and once that becomes the story of the day, something more important but boring quietly gets announced. It's a strategy dudes use in sitcoms to distract their girlfriends from bad news. ("How was your day, honey?" "Oh, you know, I had a great lunch, fixed Steve's mistakes at work, and, uh, crashedyourcar. You know, same old.") And it's being used by a man who's about to be the goddamn president.

Expect when World War Three is announced it will in between ten tweets boasting about his steaks, yelling at the New York Times, scolding the cast of Hamilton and musing about his new golf course!

EDIT: And buried somewhere in the torrent of BS spewing forth from the Trump campaign was the announcement that they'll move the US embassy to "Israel's eternal capital, Jerusalem," (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/donald-trump-david-friedman-israel-ambassador-pick-anger-arabs-palestinians-jerusalem-a7480041.html). Oh. Fuck.

And if you dig into Trump's tweets, as I've had the misfortune of doing, you'll notice that this is a trend. He says one or two things that are stupid, irrelevant, or even offensive (to people who already don't like him), and once that becomes the story of the day, something more important but boring quietly gets announced. It's a strategy dudes use in sitcoms to distract their girlfriends from bad news. ("How was your day, honey?" "Oh, you know, I had a great lunch, fixed Steve's mistakes at work, and, uh, crashedyourcar. You know, same old.") And it's being used by a man who's about to be the goddamn president.

Expect when World War Three is announced it will in between ten tweets boasting about his steaks, yelling at the New York Times, scolding the cast of Hamilton and musing about his new golf course!

EDIT: And buried somewhere in the torrent of BS spewing forth from the Trump campaign was the announcement that they'll move the US embassy to "Israel's eternal capital, Jerusalem," (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/donald-trump-david-friedman-israel-ambassador-pick-anger-arabs-palestinians-jerusalem-a7480041.html). Oh. Fuck.

It's not exactly Trump's fault that progressives on social media are a bunch of hysterical, screechy and easily manipulated dickholes.

Knowing how and when to whip them up into a windowlicking frenzy is just good messaging.

So it's the "lefts" fault that the Donald is being manipulative, including his attempts to manipulate conflict in the already burning Middle East?

Naughty left for paying attention to the President elect of the United States I suppose.

Are his followers also foolish for being manipulated into voting for him-what with the non-existent wall he got them all so excited about?

Er, your initial complaint was about the lack of attention paid to things he was saying later in the day.

Do try to keep up.

The point is, if you garner a reputation for flying off the handle and go into full-on progressive SCREEEEEEEEE mode the moment the man says anything, any competent politician is going to structure their messaging so the more unsavoury bits get drowned out by the histrionics you've already had going on since earlier in the day.

If your view is obstructed because of the amount of saliva you've deposited on the bus window, there's a very simple solution...

Because I'm still not done beating the dead horse of the democrats' circular firing squad regarding "political correctness" and "identity politics," (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-trump-won-because-people-are-tired-of-politically-correct-rhetoric/) it turns out Hillary did not focus her campaign on either, but focused mainly on jobs and the economy (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech). You know, that nice little thing that those white people in the midwest cared about. In fact, she talked about jobs six times as often as she did Muslims, which was her most talked about political identity.The article also analyzes words used to describe both Trump and Clinton in the media, and found out that most of Trump's coverage focused on policy whereas Clinton's focused on dishonesty and corruption.

In terms of what Clinton talked about, I don't think that's enough to draw conclusions from. Speeches aren't the only part of a political campaign. I'm not dismissing the claim outright, just saying we need a more comprehensive analysis. Preferably a transparent one, too.

Because I'm still not done beating the dead horse of the democrats' circular firing squad regarding "political correctness" and "identity politics," (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-trump-won-because-people-are-tired-of-politically-correct-rhetoric/) it turns out Hillary did not focus her campaign on either, but focused mainly on jobs and the economy (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech). You know, that nice little thing that those white people in the midwest cared about. In fact, she talked about jobs six times as often as she did Muslims, which was her most talked about political identity.The article also analyzes words used to describe both Trump and Clinton in the media, and found out that most of Trump's coverage focused on policy whereas Clinton's focused on dishonesty and corruption.

In terms of what Clinton talked about, I don't think that's enough to draw conclusions from. Speeches aren't the only part of a political campaign. I'm not dismissing the claim outright, just saying we need a more comprehensive analysis. Preferably a transparent one, too.

Speeches are good metric because those are given often and an analysis of the words can show, roughly, how much time she spent talking about each. While it may have some limitations, it's strength is that, unlike during Q&A sessions, this is her time that she gives to her issues. Another metric is to look at her website: out of 41 issues she gives detailed policies for, seven focus on identity politics (disability, racial justice, voting rights etc.) and 15 focus on economic factors (for the record, some could go either way, like paid family leave, so I just threw it into the identity politics section and excluded from the economic section, to err on the side of caution).

Now, if you think there is a better metric, by all means I welcome you presenting us with it. But, as it stands now, I do think there is enough evidence to show that she did focus more on the economy than identity politics.

Because I'm still not done beating the dead horse of the democrats' circular firing squad regarding "political correctness" and "identity politics," (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-trump-won-because-people-are-tired-of-politically-correct-rhetoric/) it turns out Hillary did not focus her campaign on either, but focused mainly on jobs and the economy (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech). You know, that nice little thing that those white people in the midwest cared about. In fact, she talked about jobs six times as often as she did Muslims, which was her most talked about political identity.The article also analyzes words used to describe both Trump and Clinton in the media, and found out that most of Trump's coverage focused on policy whereas Clinton's focused on dishonesty and corruption.

In terms of what Clinton talked about, I don't think that's enough to draw conclusions from. Speeches aren't the only part of a political campaign. I'm not dismissing the claim outright, just saying we need a more comprehensive analysis. Preferably a transparent one, too.

Speeches are good metric because those are given often and an analysis of the words can show, roughly, how much time she spent talking about each. While it may have some limitations, it's strength is that, unlike during Q&A sessions, this is her time that she gives to her issues. Another metric is to look at her website: out of 41 issues she gives detailed policies for, seven focus on identity politics (disability, racial justice, voting rights etc.) and 15 focus on economic factors (for the record, some could go either way, like paid family leave, so I just threw it into the identity politics section and excluded from the economic section, to err on the side of caution).

Now, if you think there is a better metric, by all means I welcome you presenting us with it. But, as it stands now, I do think there is enough evidence to show that she did focus more on the economy than identity politics.

On the other hand, both her speeches and her website were prepared in advance (and not necessarily by her), whereas interviews and debates have more off-the-cuff dialogue. And since Americans tend to be cynical about politicians (especially those they view as "career" politicians), many of them will place more weight on what is said in a more naturalistic setting.

Because I'm still not done beating the dead horse of the democrats' circular firing squad regarding "political correctness" and "identity politics," (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-trump-won-because-people-are-tired-of-politically-correct-rhetoric/) it turns out Hillary did not focus her campaign on either, but focused mainly on jobs and the economy (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech). You know, that nice little thing that those white people in the midwest cared about. In fact, she talked about jobs six times as often as she did Muslims, which was her most talked about political identity.The article also analyzes words used to describe both Trump and Clinton in the media, and found out that most of Trump's coverage focused on policy whereas Clinton's focused on dishonesty and corruption.

In terms of what Clinton talked about, I don't think that's enough to draw conclusions from. Speeches aren't the only part of a political campaign. I'm not dismissing the claim outright, just saying we need a more comprehensive analysis. Preferably a transparent one, too.

Speeches are good metric because those are given often and an analysis of the words can show, roughly, how much time she spent talking about each. While it may have some limitations, it's strength is that, unlike during Q&A sessions, this is her time that she gives to her issues. Another metric is to look at her website: out of 41 issues she gives detailed policies for, seven focus on identity politics (disability, racial justice, voting rights etc.) and 15 focus on economic factors (for the record, some could go either way, like paid family leave, so I just threw it into the identity politics section and excluded from the economic section, to err on the side of caution).

Now, if you think there is a better metric, by all means I welcome you presenting us with it. But, as it stands now, I do think there is enough evidence to show that she did focus more on the economy than identity politics.

On the other hand, both her speeches and her website were prepared in advance, whereas interviews and debates have more off-the-cuff dialogue. And since Americans tend to be cynical about politicians (especially those they view as "career" politicians), many of them will place more weight on what is said in a more naturalistic setting.

But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."

Sad that Bernie Sanders learned the worst possible lesson he could from Trump winning. "War on political correctness" is mainly an excuse to be rude and/or to lie about minorities.

I won't deny that some people use it to excuse their bigotry and bad manners. But saying it's "mainly" that is generalization. There are plenty of legit reasons to dislike political correctness.

Such as...

Such as the fact that nobody has the right to not be offended.

You know, I knew as soon as I asked the question that I would get some wishiwashy answer like this. Fact of the matter is, nobody is gonna sit here and argue that SJWs totes have great ideas. However, that is not the way that people are talking about political correctness at the moment. At the moment, political correctness is Times' using "person of the year" instead of "man of the year." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xCTQ3brk6w) It is a transgender woman using the women's bathroom. (http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/milo-yiannopoulos-harassed-a-trans-student-at-uw-milwaukee.html) It is calls to focus less on racial and gender equality in favor of white populism (https://medium.com/@marcushjohnson/we-should-call-brocialism-what-it-is-white-populism-ad257608ed52#.qifm7nf5w). And the people arguing against political correctness are playing a game of three-card monte with the rest of us, where they justify anti-PC beliefs by pointing to extremes before go after the mundane, a mundane which amounts to inclusion and treating non-white men with basic human decency. The irony in all of this is that when you look at the people griping about identity politics, the group that cares most about it happens to be white men.

So it's the "lefts" fault that the Donald is being manipulative, including his attempts to manipulate conflict in the already burning Middle East?

Naughty left for paying attention to the President elect of the United States I suppose.

Are his followers also foolish for being manipulated into voting for him-what with the non-existent wall he got them all so excited about?

Er, your initial complaint was about the lack of attention paid to things he was saying later in the day.

Do try to keep up.

The point is, if you garner a reputation for flying off the handle and go into full-on progressive SCREEEEEEEEE mode the moment the man says anything, any competent politician is going to structure their messaging so the more unsavoury bits get drowned out by the histrionics you've already had going on since earlier in the day.

If your view is obstructed because of the amount of saliva you've deposited on the bus window, there's a very simple solution...

Donald is typical of "competent politicians"? In what universe? One where Chiang Kai-shek won China?

Also we are discussing a man who frequently loses his shit at SNL skits, time magazine not using his favored gendered pronoun and critical Broadway productions, so much for going into automatic "scree" mode, and competency for that matter!

The point is, like much of what Donald does, babbling a metric ton of bullshit with a single salient point in it isn't a master plan of his, just a byproduct of his childlike inability to focus on anything for more than a minute flat. It just happens to work to his advantage in one area only.

But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."

Normally, I'd get where you're coming from, but considering the proven collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign, it's difficult to say whether she really was unable to control those conversations.

You know, I knew as soon as I asked the question that I would get some wishiwashy answer like this. Fact of the matter is, nobody is gonna sit here and argue that SJWs totes have great ideas. However, that is not the way that people are talking about political correctness at the moment. At the moment, political correctness is Times' using "person of the year" instead of "man of the year." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xCTQ3brk6w) It is a transgender woman using the women's bathroom. (http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/milo-yiannopoulos-harassed-a-trans-student-at-uw-milwaukee.html) It is calls to focus less on racial and gender equality in favor of white populism (https://medium.com/@marcushjohnson/we-should-call-brocialism-what-it-is-white-populism-ad257608ed52#.qifm7nf5w). And the people arguing against political correctness are playing a game of three-card monte with the rest of us, where they justify anti-PC beliefs by pointing to extremes before go after the mundane, a mundane which amounts to inclusion and treating non-white men with basic human decency. The irony in all of this is that when you look at the people griping about identity politics, the group that cares most about it happens to be white men.

It's no secret that there are some people who call themselves "anti-PC" as an excuse to be rude or bigoted. We've already established that. However, saying this extends to everybody opposed to political correctness is generalizing things way too much. It's like saying all critics of neo-conservatism hate Jews. Right off the top of my head, I can name dozens, if not hundreds, of anti-PC people who don't fit the profile, up to and including President Obama (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/310964-obama-on-political-correctness-dont-go-around-just-looking-for).

Also, different groups have different perceptions of "political correctness". I've heard it argued (not unreasonably) that political correctness exists on the right as well, it's just called by different names.

I understand that it may be tempting to view anti-PC people as stereotypical "angry white men." But that doesn't reflect the more complex reality. How about this: let's not try to generalize diverse groups of people. Especially not as an excuse to dismiss them wholesale.

But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."

Normally, I'd get where you're coming from, but considering the proven collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign, it's difficult to say whether she really was unable to control those conversations.

Proven collusion? Those are some fancy straws that you're grasping at. I assume you're talking about the Donna Brazile email, in which case Wikileaks indicated that one question regarding the death penalty was leaked in advance (one that Brazile forwarded without Hillary requesting her to do so). That is one question, out of 9 primary (and by the time people voted, another 3 general) presidential debates. I seriously have trouble believing that 1 leaked question indicates nefarious collusion in which she dictated the questions asked of her. What is more, even if I accept your argument that debates should be factored in with speeches, you've presented nothing indicating that it would skew her focus away from the economy to identity politics.

But nevermind that, the notion that she was in bed with the media goes full circle to the post that started this: that while Clinton mainly focused on policy, the coverage of Clinton focused on dishonesty and corruption (whereas the coverage of Trump focused on policy, no matter how ill-informed or buffoonish). Despite the fact that it is one question that arose in the course of twelve debates, since Hillary was held to a perfection standard, that one blemish is enough to give off an appearance of collusion.

It's no secret that there are some people who call themselves "anti-PC" as an excuse to be rude or bigoted. We've already established that. However, saying this extends to everybody opposed to political correctness is generalizing things way too much. It's like saying all critics of neo-conservatism hate Jews. Right off the top of my head, I can name dozens, if not hundreds, of anti-PC people who don't fit the profile, up to and including President Obama (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/310964-obama-on-political-correctness-dont-go-around-just-looking-for).

Also, different groups have different perceptions of "political correctness". I've heard it argued (not unreasonably) that political correctness exists on the right as well, it's just called by different names.

I understand that it may be tempting to view anti-PC people as stereotypical "angry white men." But that doesn't reflect the more complex reality. How about this: let's not try to generalize diverse groups of people. Especially not as an excuse to dismiss them wholesale.

You really enjoy that middle ground fallacy, don't you? Some little shit on twitter rambling and hurring is not the same as Milo, Bernie, or the fucking president-elect. Wholly different topic, buddy.

But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."

Normally, I'd get where you're coming from, but considering the proven collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign, it's difficult to say whether she really was unable to control those conversations.

Proven collusion? Those are some fancy straws that you're grasping at. I assume you're talking about the Donna Brazile email, in which case Wikileaks indicated that one question regarding the death penalty was leaked in advance (one that Brazile forwarded without Hillary requesting her to do so). That is one question, out of 9 primary (and by the time people voted, another 3 general) presidential debates. I seriously have trouble believing that 1 leaked question indicates nefarious collusion in which she dictated the questions asked of her. What is more, even if I accept your argument that debates should be factored in with speeches, you've presented nothing indicating that it would skew her focus away from the economy to identity politics.

But nevermind that, the notion that she was in bed with the media goes full circle to the post that started this: that while Clinton mainly focused on policy, the coverage of Clinton focused on dishonesty and corruption (whereas the coverage of Trump focused on policy, no matter how ill-informed or buffoonish). Despite the fact that it is one question that arose in the course of twelve debates, since Hillary was held to a perfection standard, that one blemish is enough to give off an appearance of collusion.

There are two problems with what you're saying. The first is in regards to WikiLeaks. What it revealed goes a lot deeper than Donna's email (http://observer.com/2016/11/new-dnc-emails-expose-more-dnc-media-clinton-campaign-collusion/). And the second is that the poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/195596/email-dominates-americans-heard-clinton.aspx) only covers what Americans remembered "reading, seeing, or hearing" (their words, not mine), not what the media said. That's an important difference.

It's no secret that there are some people who call themselves "anti-PC" as an excuse to be rude or bigoted. We've already established that. However, saying this extends to everybody opposed to political correctness is generalizing things way too much. It's like saying all critics of neo-conservatism hate Jews. Right off the top of my head, I can name dozens, if not hundreds, of anti-PC people who don't fit the profile, up to and including President Obama (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/310964-obama-on-political-correctness-dont-go-around-just-looking-for).

Also, different groups have different perceptions of "political correctness". I've heard it argued (not unreasonably) that political correctness exists on the right as well, it's just called by different names.

I understand that it may be tempting to view anti-PC people as stereotypical "angry white men." But that doesn't reflect the more complex reality. How about this: let's not try to generalize diverse groups of people. Especially not as an excuse to dismiss them wholesale.

You really enjoy that middle ground fallacy, don't you? Some little shit on twitter rambling and hurring is not the same as Milo, Bernie, or the fucking president-elect. Wholly different topic, buddy.

You're right, it's not the same. But I never said it was. I'm not talking about people being idiots on social media. If that were all PC culture was, I could live with it. Unfortunately, it's a lot worse than just that. Take a gander at what's happening on college campuses (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/07/the-craziest-demands-of-college-kids-in-2016.html).

So, inferring from your use of this article as a demonstration of "PC culture", your definition of "PC culture" includes

- people "demanding" change instead of just "asking for" change- practitioners of a faith taking issue with a non-practitioner replicating sacred elements of said faith for the sake of putting on a show- students not wanting to have an arbitrary wait period before they can study poets who aren't white guys- Asian people wanting the Asian food in cafeterias to be more representative of actual Asian food- students wanting there to actually be monitoring of shitty language on campus and enforcement of manners in public spaces- people with depression, anxiety disorder and/or mental trauma being impeded academically because of these neurological issues and desiring assistance from faculty that would help them work around these impediments

- students wanting there to actually be monitoring of shitty language on campus and enforcement of manners in public spaces

If ever there were an actual, agreeable definition of "PC" in the negative sense, that'd be it, yeah. Hate speech, I can see you getting the shit kicked out of you, legally. Inciting people to riot or commit crimes? Again, nothing wrong with punishing that. But, just being a douchebag? And "enforcement of manners in public spaces?" That's basically the exact thing people that bitch about "PC culture" mean when they complain. I shouldn't be required to be polite to people, or to even be nice. Play Ultima V and see what happens when you start legislating morality.

Also, poetry is the lowest form of creative writing, so not studying non-white poets is like not being able to study non-white mimes. That last bit may or may not be sarcasm.

- practitioners of a faith taking issue with a non-practitioner replicating sacred elements of said faith for the sake of putting on a show

Take note, people. Culture, and especially religion, are not inherently sacred. If you believe a thing is sacred because your imaginary friend said so, fine, you do you. However, and I cannot stress this enough, you do not have the right to have your beliefs validated by non-believers. Honestly, I'm absolutely fed up with religious entitlement.

Also, I should point out that culture itself, much like pretty much everything humanity has come up with, is highly iterative. Progress as a whole is far more the result of adopting and iterating upon foreign ideas than it is about originality. My overall point is that if appropriation never happened, be it cultural or otherwise, humanity would be a far more primitive species than it is now.

- students not wanting to have an arbitrary wait period before they can study poets who aren't white guys

If you want to change the content of university courses, you're going to need something a little more academically grounded than "fuck white dudes". Honestly, they're not even trying to pretend that it's about the actual poetry itself rather than merely the author's skin colour, I really don't see why you're implying that they should be taken seriously.

- Asian people wanting the Asian food in cafeterias to be more representative of actual Asian food

See my above rant. You've no right to take away people's access to certain food because it's not made exactly the way you think it should be made. That, again, is one of the most entitled things I've ever heard.

Also, once more, food is just as iterative as anything else humanity does. Look into the history of any given dish, and it almost certainly started life as a bastardised version of something foreign. Of course westernised Chinese food is going to be different from actual Chinese food. Food changes to suit the local tastes and available ingredients, and (much like cultural appropriation) that is a good thing.

- people with depression, anxiety disorder and/or mental trauma being impeded academically because of these neurological issues and desiring assistance from faculty that would help them work around these impediments

And here's the one halfway valid point. Out of six. So yeah, that's a thing.

If ever there were an actual, agreeable definition of "PC" in the negative sense, that'd be it, yeah. Hate speech, I can see you getting the shit kicked out of you, legally. Inciting people to riot or commit crimes? Again, nothing wrong with punishing that. But, just being a douchebag? And "enforcement of manners in public spaces?" That's basically the exact thing people that bitch about "PC culture" mean when they complain. I shouldn't be required to be polite to people, or to even be nice. Play Ultima V and see what happens when you start legislating morality.

I think I've worded myself poorly and communicated things I didn't intend to. I agree that legislating politeness on a broader level is a worrisome concept, but I don't think it's at all unreasonable for a school to hypothetically go "if you're going to insist on being an egregious douchebag to the students or faculty within our walls, you'll get reprimanded or even penalized in some way". Also, I don't really see anything wrong with a committee that would hypothetically inform people of ways certain language can be hurtful (although giving student committees actual punitive power would, again, be worrisome).

Quote

If you want to change the content of university courses, you're going to need something a little more academically grounded than "fuck white dudes". Honestly, they're not even trying to pretend that it's about the actual poetry itself rather than merely the author's skin colour, I really don't see why you're implying that they should be taken seriously.

Because cultural background, geographic area and identity affect the context and roots, and therefore substance, of the poetry any given poet produces, and so framing a desire for more immediate access to diverse poetry to study as "merely the author's skin colour" is pretty reductive.

Because cultural background, geographic area and identity affect the context and roots, and therefore substance, of the poetry any given poet produces, and so framing a desire for more immediate access to diverse poetry to study as "merely the author's skin colour" is pretty reductive.

Okay, that argument has some merit. Too bad it's really not why this is a thing.

Quote

“It is unacceptable that a Yale student considering studying English literature might read only white male authors,” wrote student activists in a petition. “The Major English Poets sequences creates a culture that is especially hostile to students of color.”

Again, the reason why the students want less white authors is simply because they're white. It's less to do with the idea that, say, the students would receive a better and more rounded understanding of poetry by studying authors with more diverse perspectives, and more that idiots are offended because white men.

If ever there were an actual, agreeable definition of "PC" in the negative sense, that'd be it, yeah. Hate speech, I can see you getting the shit kicked out of you, legally. Inciting people to riot or commit crimes? Again, nothing wrong with punishing that. But, just being a douchebag? And "enforcement of manners in public spaces?" That's basically the exact thing people that bitch about "PC culture" mean when they complain. I shouldn't be required to be polite to people, or to even be nice. Play Ultima V and see what happens when you start legislating morality.

I think I've worded myself poorly and communicated things I didn't intend to. I agree that legislating politeness on a broader level is a worrisome concept, but I don't think it's at all unreasonable for a school to hypothetically go "if you're going to insist on being an egregious douchebag to the students or faculty within our walls, you'll get reprimanded or even penalized in some way". Also, I don't really see anything wrong with a committee that would hypothetically inform people of ways certain language can be hurtful (although giving student committees actual punitive power would, again, be worrisome).

That's better, aye. I don't mind there being penalties for being a prick; just because you have a right to say something doesn't mean you have the right to use a given space for airing such things. If that's not okay with you, find somewhere else to mouth off or stop being a cunt.

Quote

“It is unacceptable that a Yale student considering studying English literature might read only white male authors,” wrote student activists in a petition. “The Major English Poets sequences creates a culture that is especially hostile to students of color.”

That is not what "hostile" means! What you meant, you insipid bellend, is "non-inclusive." Fuck, I'll grant you that; if you're going to waste your time getting a Walmart greeter English degree, you might as well study authors that aren't explicitly white. Of course, its English literature, which could mean anything from "English-language literature" to "literature specifically from England." If its the former, then it is rather queer that your courses never cover non-white authors, but if its the latter...well, yeah. England, up until relatively recently, has been pretty fucking white.

Maybe Sec. Clinton could take solace in the words of another New York Democratic politician who ran for President 140 years before she did...

Quote from: Gov. Samuel Tilden

I can retire to private life with the consciousness that I shall receive from posterity the credit of having been elected to the highest position in the gift of the people, without any of the cares and responsibilities of the office.

EDIT: In fact, of the five times a candidate has won a popular plurality but not the Electoral College (Tilden is the only one of the five to win a popular majority), three--Tilden, Pres. Cleveland, and Sec. Clinton--were from New York.

At the moment the electors gave in a blood red comet was seen in the sky, the ravens at the tower of London took flight never to be seen again, the sun was covered in darkness and the moon turned red, rains of frogs fell around the world and churchbells around the world started ringing by themselves with an endless "Doom, Doom, Doom".

At the moment the electors gave in a blood red comet was seen in the sky, the ravens at the tower of London took flight never to be seen again, the sun was covered in darkness and the moon turned red, rains of frogs fell around the world and churchbells around the world started ringing by themselves with an endless "Doom, Doom, Doom".

Altogether better then I thought it would be

Well, that's probably the view of the New York Times (or the "unnamed sources" who fed them the story, whatevs), but in reality everything is fine :)

So, we've had our little recounts and we've tried to get the electoral college to do the undemocratic thing.

Now that's all over, can we echo the sage words of one Hillary R. Clinton and call on the losing side to accept the result of the election without (further) violence and shenanigans?

^_^

Odd, most of the violence and "shenanigans" have come from Trump's side (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/). In fact, there have been almost 1000 reported hate crimes since the election, constituting a considerable uptick. Funny that when you elect a demagogue that ran on fear, bigotry, and scapegoating vulnerable minorities, people who already had those prejudices feel emboldened and lash out at those vulnerable minorities.

He never had any thought about keeping a single campaign promise ever. It was just empty words. There will be no jobs coming back from overseas, there will be no sudden good times for the rural parts of America and they will get fucked over in ways they never thought they could get fucked over.

So, we've had our little recounts and we've tried to get the electoral college to do the undemocratic thing.

Now that's all over, can we echo the sage words of one Hillary R. Clinton and call on the losing side to accept the result of the election without (further) violence and shenanigans?

^_^

Odd, most of the violence and "shenanigans" have come from Trump's side (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/). In fact, there have been almost 1000 reported hate crimes since the election, constituting a considerable uptick. Funny that when you elect a demagogue that ran on fear, bigotry, and scapegoating vulnerable minorities, people who already had those prejudices feel emboldened and lash out at those vulnerable minorities.

We both know he's trolling and doesn't care about that fact, or any other facts really.

It's not why he's here.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxarDpLUoAAnrCB.jpg)

Expect enraged squeals of "I'm not an anti semite", regardless - his style of "debate" fits the profile like a glove.

So, we've had our little recounts and we've tried to get the electoral college to do the undemocratic thing.

Now that's all over, can we echo the sage words of one Hillary R. Clinton and call on the losing side to accept the result of the election without (further) violence and shenanigans?

^_^

Odd, most of the violence and "shenanigans" have come from Trump's side (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/). In fact, there have been almost 1000 reported hate crimes since the election, constituting a considerable uptick. Funny that when you elect a demagogue that ran on fear, bigotry, and scapegoating vulnerable minorities, people who already had those prejudices feel emboldened and lash out at those vulnerable minorities.

We both know he's trolling and doesn't care about that fact, or any other facts really.

It's not why he's here.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxarDpLUoAAnrCB.jpg)

Expect enraged squeals of "I'm not an anti semite", regardless - his style of "debate" fits the profile like a glove.

Oddly, my first thought on reading that wasn't Contrarian, but Dynamic Paragon. I kind of miss that guy, but he was a fucking idiot.

1) a TERF / says TERFs have good ideas.2) praised the work of the Khmer Rouge3) wants a totalitarian society with himself in charge.4) said he believes he is going to form the course of the world.5) called for eugenics programs and believes the mentally ill need to be culled for the sake of his world.

1) a TERF / says TERFs have good ideas.2) praised the work of the Khmer Rouge3) wants a totalitarian society with himself in charge.4) said he believes he is going to form the course of the world.5) called for eugenics programs and believes the mentally ill need to be culled for the sake of his world.

The quality of our trolls is going down, all we have are two half hearted shitposters. We need zealous, serious crazy for proper entertainment. At least Ultimate Dynamic Draconic Concerned Citizen Paragon had that.

So, we've had our little recounts and we've tried to get the electoral college to do the undemocratic thing.

Now that's all over, can we echo the sage words of one Hillary R. Clinton and call on the losing side to accept the result of the election without (further) violence and shenanigans?

^_^

Odd, most of the violence and "shenanigans" have come from Trump's side (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/). In fact, there have been almost 1000 reported hate crimes since the election, constituting a considerable uptick. Funny that when you elect a demagogue that ran on fear, bigotry, and scapegoating vulnerable minorities, people who already had those prejudices feel emboldened and lash out at those vulnerable minorities.

We both know he's trolling and doesn't care about that fact, or any other facts really.

It's not why he's here.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxarDpLUoAAnrCB.jpg)

Expect enraged squeals of "I'm not an anti semite", regardless - his style of "debate" fits the profile like a glove.

Oddly, my first thought on reading that wasn't Contrarian, but Dynamic Paragon. I kind of miss that guy, but he was a fucking idiot.

Speaking of, I'm still a Dynamic Dragon sock puppet.

I'm not sure if I am his sockpuppet or if I just really enjoy the feel of his hand in my arse.

Whenever someone says 'nihilist' I immediately think: "Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism but at least it's an ethos'

But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."

Normally, I'd get where you're coming from, but considering the proven collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign, it's difficult to say whether she really was unable to control those conversations.

Proven collusion? Those are some fancy straws that you're grasping at. I assume you're talking about the Donna Brazile email, in which case Wikileaks indicated that one question regarding the death penalty was leaked in advance (one that Brazile forwarded without Hillary requesting her to do so). That is one question, out of 9 primary (and by the time people voted, another 3 general) presidential debates. I seriously have trouble believing that 1 leaked question indicates nefarious collusion in which she dictated the questions asked of her. What is more, even if I accept your argument that debates should be factored in with speeches, you've presented nothing indicating that it would skew her focus away from the economy to identity politics.

But nevermind that, the notion that she was in bed with the media goes full circle to the post that started this: that while Clinton mainly focused on policy, the coverage of Clinton focused on dishonesty and corruption (whereas the coverage of Trump focused on policy, no matter how ill-informed or buffoonish). Despite the fact that it is one question that arose in the course of twelve debates, since Hillary was held to a perfection standard, that one blemish is enough to give off an appearance of collusion.

There are two problems with what you're saying. The first is in regards to WikiLeaks. What it revealed goes a lot deeper than Donna's email (http://observer.com/2016/11/new-dnc-emails-expose-more-dnc-media-clinton-campaign-collusion/). And the second is that the poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/195596/email-dominates-americans-heard-clinton.aspx) only covers what Americans remembered "reading, seeing, or hearing" (their words, not mine), not what the media said. That's an important difference.

It's no secret that there are some people who call themselves "anti-PC" as an excuse to be rude or bigoted. We've already established that. However, saying this extends to everybody opposed to political correctness is generalizing things way too much. It's like saying all critics of neo-conservatism hate Jews. Right off the top of my head, I can name dozens, if not hundreds, of anti-PC people who don't fit the profile, up to and including President Obama (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/310964-obama-on-political-correctness-dont-go-around-just-looking-for).

Also, different groups have different perceptions of "political correctness". I've heard it argued (not unreasonably) that political correctness exists on the right as well, it's just called by different names.

I understand that it may be tempting to view anti-PC people as stereotypical "angry white men." But that doesn't reflect the more complex reality. How about this: let's not try to generalize diverse groups of people. Especially not as an excuse to dismiss them wholesale.

You really enjoy that middle ground fallacy, don't you? Some little shit on twitter rambling and hurring is not the same as Milo, Bernie, or the fucking president-elect. Wholly different topic, buddy.

You're right, it's not the same. But I never said it was. I'm not talking about people being idiots on social media. If that were all PC culture was, I could live with it. Unfortunately, it's a lot worse than just that. Take a gander at what's happening on college campuses (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/07/the-craziest-demands-of-college-kids-in-2016.html).

So, I decided just to stop the argument and throw up proof because it seems your questions are less heuristic and more to dismiss. So, I googled democratic primary debate transcript, and the first one that came up was from the April 14, debate. From that, I decided to do a small sample search, including the 2 before it (debates 7-9). I did this primarily for convenience on my part so that I wouldn't have to do all 12 debates (9 primary and 3 general). I then went through and removed all questions and statements by Sanders to focus purely on Clinton's statements. Overall, even including a number of policy issues (such as Gun and climate change) in Identity Politics, Clinton still mentioned economic issues about 2-1. Attached is the full breakdown of word appearances, and transcripts of my work.

So, I did your homework for you. As such, unless you can present evidence that including more debates would skew this breakdown, it still appears that Clinton focused far more on economic issues than identity politics.

I mean, it was already horrible that Trump is gathering up a hit list list of government employees who have done work promoting awareness of climate change ...but what the hell is this shit?

He also doesn't want ladies in his administration unless they're hawt. (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/trump-wont-give-you-an-administration-job-if-youre-not-pretty-enough-its-more-about-the-look/) It's only a matter of time before there's a colossal fuckup of galactic proportions. "Why did you listen to that adviser? She wawz the best advisa, she was hawwwwt".

And the thing is, there will come a point where even Faux Noise will be going "The President royally fucked up today, here's a panel of experts on how he fucked up," and he'll cut off their access to him.

And the thing is, there will come a point where even Faux Noise will be going "The President royally fucked up today, here's a panel of experts on how he fucked up," and he'll cut off their access to him.

Anyone in his administration that fucks up he'll either try to "fire" or put the blame completely on them or someone else because it will never be Donald Trumps fault. If a woman fucks up it was because she was a vile nasty woman, with blood coming out of her wherever.

Quote

Trump has made it clear that he wants a “telegenic woman” to be his press secretary because “he thinks it would attract viewers and would help inoculate him from the charges of sexism that trailed his presidential campaign.”

Which on it's own is sexist because you're only considering woman credible by their attractiveness.

I thought this was some good analysis about the similarities between the end of Romen democracy and the current state of the US.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/opinion/how-republics-end.html

EDIT

And just in case you didn't think Donald Trump was the piece of putrid vomit, when his nephew challenged the Terms of Fred Trump's will claiming that Donald had “procured (the will) by fraud and undue influence” on his Alzheimer’s suffering father leaving less for his nephew. Donald responded by cutting off his chronically ill infant son's health care.

The baby survived, and the courts forced Donald to resume health care coverage, but yeah that's the fucking president. God help us all. http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/what-sort-of-man-is-donald-trump

And the thing is, there will come a point where even Faux Noise will be going "The President royally fucked up today, here's a panel of experts on how he fucked up," and he'll cut off their access to him.

Ironbite-he's going to destroy media relations in this country.

Psh, he doesn't even need Fox News now.

“Trump TV” announces new 24-hour network will get access to White House press briefings (http://www.salon.com/2016/12/07/trump-tv-announces-new-24-hour-network-will-get-access-to-white-house-press-briefings/)

So, we've had our little recounts and we've tried to get the electoral college to do the undemocratic thing.

Now that's all over, can we echo the sage words of one Hillary R. Clinton and call on the losing side to accept the result of the election without (further) violence and shenanigans?

^_^

Odd, most of the violence and "shenanigans" have come from Trump's side (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/). In fact, there have been almost 1000 reported hate crimes since the election, constituting a considerable uptick. Funny that when you elect a demagogue that ran on fear, bigotry, and scapegoating vulnerable minorities, people who already had those prejudices feel emboldened and lash out at those vulnerable minorities.

We both know he's trolling and doesn't care about that fact, or any other facts really.

It's not why he's here.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxarDpLUoAAnrCB.jpg)

Expect enraged squeals of "I'm not an anti semite", regardless - his style of "debate" fits the profile like a glove.

You know, if I were on your side of the aisle (http://www.itv.com/news/2016-12-23/some-uk-universities-no-go-zones-for-jewish-students-because-of-anti-semitism-academic-claims/), I might be a little more circumspect about throwing around accusations of antisemitism.

Given how snuggly the left has gotten with militant islamist groups in the last few years it may expose more about you than you initially hoped.

And that's not even getting into the nasty undercurrent of antisemitism that occasionally leaks out of the Labour party in this country. It seems to have crept in with the resurgence of the marxists under Corbyn. Funny that XD

You know, Contrarian, if I were throwing around accusations and links I would first like to verify if they are true: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/dec/23/jewish-students-union-denies-claims-rife-antisemitism-uk-universities

Are there incidents of anti-semitism in UK universities? Yes. Are some of them "no-go zones" for Jews? No, that's is a horrible exaggeration.

Besides, what "islamist groups" are "Tolpuddle Martyr's aisle" supporting or are you conflating all Muslims with terrorists?

Way to underscore my point Conty, fling an obviously trite accusation and watch the sparks fly. Saying that the "left" is "in bed" with militant Islamists simply because most lefties aren't openly sectarian towards Muslims is completely daft.

Tell us Contrarian, was it lefties like me or right wing trolls that came up with the "le happy merchant" (http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/617/jew_basic.jpg)meme? There are plenty of antisemitic trolls on "your side of the aisle" too.

Or better yet, don't. THIS THREAD IS NOW ABOUT CONTRARIAN AND HIS BLOVIATING POINTS!!!

Way to underscore my point Conty, fling an obviously trite accusation and watch the sparks fly. Saying that the "left" is "in bed" with militant Islamists simply because most lefties aren't openly sectarian towards Muslims is completely daft.

Tell us Contrarian, was it lefties like me or right wing trolls that came up with the "le happy merchant" (http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/617/jew_basic.jpg)meme? There are plenty of antisemitic trolls on "your side of the aisle" too.

Or better yet, don't. THIS THREAD IS NOW ABOUT CONTRARIAN AND HIS BLOVIATING POINTS!!!

For example (p. 53), 17% of Trump voters think the climate is not changing... despite overwhelming scientific evidence in the opposite direction. (If there's any real debate in the scientific community over climate change, it's over whether or not we can still fix it before the planet becomes uninhabitable for us.)

Page 54: 31% of people polled--with 22% of Clinton voters and 31% of Trump voters--think that vaccines definitely or probably have been shown to cause autism.

Page 55: 25% of people polled think the US government definitely or probably helped plan the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Page 56: 53% (!) of people polled think that Saddam Hussein definitely or probably had WMDs that the US never found, including 33% of Clinton voters and 68% (!!) of Trump voters.

Page 57: 52% of people polled think the 2008 financial crash was definitely or probably orchestrated by Wall Street bankers.

Page 58: 36% of people polled think that President Obama was definitely or probably born in Kenya, including 52% (!!!) of Trump voters.

Page 59: 52% of people polled think it is definitely or probably true that Russia hacked the DNC's and Podesta's e-mails to help Trump win, including 87% of Clinton voters.

Page 60: 38% of people polled think that Pizzagate was definitely or probably true, including 46% (!!) of Trump voters.

Page 61: 46% of people polled think that millions of illegal votes were definitely or probably cast in the election, including 62% (!) of Trump voters.

Page 62: And if it looks like I'm ragging on Trump voters, well... 37% of people polled think it is definitely or probably true that Russia tampered with vote tallies to help elect Trump, including 50% (!!!) of Clinton voters.

Also, for some other stuff:

Page 90: 53% of respondents have a favourable opinion of President Obama. (5% expressed no opinion.)

Page 91: 45% of respondents have a favourable opinion of President-Elect Trump. (6% expressed no opinion.)

Page 92: 40% of respondents have a favourable opinion of Secretary Clinton. 65% expressed no opinion.)

Page 93: 48% of respondents have a favourable opinion of Vice President Biden. (18% expressed no opinion.)

Page 125: Only 11% (!!) of respondents strongly or somewhat approve of the way Congress is handling its job. (15% expressed no opinion.)

Page 127: 36% of respondents have a favourable opinion of Congressional Democrats. (16% expressed no opinion.)

Page 128: 27% of respondents have a favourable opinion of Congressional Republicans. (16% expressed no opinion.)

Page 129: 30% of respondents somewhat or strongly approve of the way Speaker Ryan is handling his job. (31% expressed no opinion.)

Page 130: 21% of respondents somewhat or strongly approve of the way Senator McConnell is handling his job (as Senate Majority Leader). (38% expressed no opinion.)

Page 131: 25% of respondents somewhat or strongly approve of the way Senator Reid is handling his job (as Senate Minority Leader). (39% expressed no opinion.)

Page 132: 25% of respondents somewhat or strongly approve of the way Representative Pelosi is handling her job (as House Minority Leader). (34% expressed no opinion.)

Page 133: 44% of respondents think this Congress has accomplished less than Congress typically does at this point in its life. (27% expressed no opinion.)

Page 134: Of that 44%: 13% think Democrats are more to blame for this Congress accomplishing less than usual, 40% think Republicans are more to blame, and 43% blame both parties equally. (1% blame neither; 2% expressed no opinion.)

Page 143: 28% of respondents think the ACA should be expanded, 11% think it should be kept the same, and 41% think it should be repealed; 20% expressed no opinion. (Note: I do not know if the question asked about the "Affordable Care Act" or "Obamacare.")

Pizzagate does not deserve fairness (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pizzagate-shows-how-fake-news-hurts-real-people/2016/11/25/d9ee0590-b0f9-11e6-840f-e3ebab6bcdd3_story.html?utm_term=.78aa8335857e). It's a fake news story from 4chan idiots hoping to stir shit up (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-38156985). Due to gullibility, and people thinking that folks they don't like "totally would have done that" they succeeded.

Yeah admittedly - if Jimmy Savile (seriously, his last name has VILE in it) had not been revealed to be basically a comic book supervillain on the order of Norman Osborn, this would be on the level of the eighties Satanic Panic.

However, it cannot be ignored that this conspiracy theory posits that a random pizza place was used as the site for child sex slavery, including a place that did not exist.

The Savile thing had evidence, and he was creepy in person.

The pizza place was hurt by fake news which sadly sounded real enough to people who don't think research is necessary, just THE FEELING they are right.

Yeah, ultimately I think a conspiracy theory should be judged on what we know to be true as opposed to what we think certain people are capable of. Certainly that can be a mitigating factor but by itself it proves exactly Jack.

By the way, you know that old song-and-dance about how racial resentment got Trump elected? Yeah, turns out he won a greater share of the PoC vote (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/11/trump-got-more-votes-from-people-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/?utm_term=.fad1da8d07c2) than Romney did in 2012.

By the way, you know that old song-and-dance about how racial resentment got Trump elected? Yeah, turns out he won a greater share of the PoC vote (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/11/trump-got-more-votes-from-people-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/?utm_term=.fad1da8d07c2) than Romney did in 2012.

Which is kinda like saying a tortoise will beat a goldfish in a hundred meter dash on land, but OK.

By the way, you know that old song-and-dance about how racial resentment got Trump elected? Yeah, turns out he won a greater share of the PoC vote (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/11/trump-got-more-votes-from-people-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/?utm_term=.fad1da8d07c2) than Romney did in 2012.

Which is kinda like saying a tortoise will beat a goldfish in a hundred meter dash on land, but OK.

And look at 2000 and 2004. It really is more a factor of Obama doing really well among racial minorities than Trump doing well.

By the way, you know that old song-and-dance about how racial resentment got Trump elected? Yeah, turns out he won a greater share of the PoC vote (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/11/trump-got-more-votes-from-people-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/?utm_term=.fad1da8d07c2) than Romney did in 2012.

Which is kinda like saying a tortoise will beat a goldfish in a hundred meter dash on land, but OK.

And look at 2000 and 2004. It really is more a factor of Obama doing really well among racial minorities than Trump doing well.

My point was that Trump won too many minority votes for his success to be boiled down to "white rage". As the article points out:

Quote

Comparing yesterday’s results with 2012, as this Washington Post feature does, shows that Trump actually performed slightly worse among white voters than Mitt Romney did. He did, however, perform better than Romney among blacks, Latinos and Asian Americans, making it more difficult to claim that racial resentment was the dominant factor explaining Trump’s support nationally.

It shows that more minorities voted for Trump than for Romney, not that many of the whites who voted for him weren't, at least in part, motivated by racial anxieties. You need to show a.causative relationship here, not merely a correlation.

I don't know what made Trump do better with minorities then Romney, but I don't think it invalidates the central role racism played in his campaign. I'm sure there are plenty of Cubans who hate Mexicans or black Christians who hate Muslims.

I think there was a Vox article that put it pretty well: there were three groups of Trump voters 1) Those who supported him in the primary. They were almost exclusively motivated by racism. 2) The normal republicans who opposed Trump in the primary but voted for him in the general. They just voted for him because he had an R next to his name and they hate Hillary Clinton. 3) the rustbelt voters fliped over to his side at the last minute. It's not clear if that was out of racism or because they liked his empty bullshit of keeping American jobs and opposing free trade.

So not everyone who voted for Trump did so out of racism, but the ones that did are the reason he got the republican nomination and remain his biggest fans.

I think it's entirely possible that Trump can appeal to a greater percentage of minority voters than Romney while also appealing to those Republicans who harbor racial resentment who have been shown to be more attracted to Trump than they were to Romney as well (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/01/trump-is-the-first-republican-in-modern-times-to-win-the-partys-nomination-on-anti-minority-sentiments/?utm_term=.0c7b3d21db71). Because people vote for a candidate for all sorts of reasons, also-Romney has the charisma of a potato.

Trump campaigned on fear, those not fearful of black or brown people might still be attracted to fear of Muslims, or China, or America's changing industrial landscape-or change period. Fear sells!

Swamp draining is progressing just as planned: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/02/politics/office-of-congressional-ethics-oversight-of-ethics-committee-amendment/

Quote

The proposal would bar the panel from reviewing any violation of criminal law by members of Congress, requiring that it turn over complaints instead to the House Ethics Committee or refer the matter to an appropriate federal law enforcement agency. The House Ethics Committee would also have the power to stop an investigation at any point and bars the ethics office from making any public statements about any matters or hiring any communications staff.And the ethics office would no longer be able to accept or investigate any anonymous reports of alleged wrongdoing by members of Congress.

It is important to cripple the ethics panel ASAP so that it can not interfere with the Congress when the members violate US laws.

He's smart enough to realize that a lot of 'his' party plan on using him as a useful idiot. A shot like this is meant to remind them to fall in line and follow his agenda and perpetuate the illusion that he is there for his followers.

They probably would have been allowed to get away with it if it hadn't gotten any attention that detracts from the Trump narrative.

Don't forget that to repeal the ACA they had to amend legislation to exempt legislation that would repeal other legislation from statutory limits on deficit increases... in effect, they're admitting that the ACA saves the federal government money. (Or at least that it brings in a significant chunk of tax revenue between the penalty for not having insurance and the tax on high-income earners--I believe the threshold is $3,700,000--that helps fund the subsidies.)

The GOP: Party of Fiscal Responsibility.

(Related fact: The last Republican president to have a balanced budget at any time during his term was Nixon. The last one to end his time in office with a balanced budget was Eisenhower.)

Anyone that actually pays attention to politics could have told you that "fiscal responsibility" is nothing more than a smokescreen. The problem is that enough of this country believes the lie to allow the Republicans to literally kill people through negligence.

Anyone that actually pays attention to politics could have told you that "fiscal responsibility" is nothing more than a smokescreen. The problem is that enough of this country believes the lie to allow the Republicans to literally kill people through negligence.

Just disregard that Republicans over the last forty years exploded the deficit, and Democrats have run surpluses and reduced it by 2/3. That's just liberal propaganda.

My current favourite "fiscally responsible" Republican policy is how New York City is having to spend, and is going to have to spend, shitloads of money to secure Trump Tower since Trump isn't going to move into the White House full-time, never mind the economic harm those measures are probably causing because of traffic rerouting and such.

The cynic in me suspects it might be a conscious "insurance" against Democrat legislators proposing anything that might resemble left wing social institutions in the future. They break the bank into itty bitty pieces so that there's no funds left by the time the Dems take the reins again. Therefore no godless "safety net" or heathen "scientific research" to bother them with horrid facts.

Remember that wall that Mexico was somehow going to pay for.Yeah it turns out the tax payers are going to pay for it and Mexico will somehow reimburse us later on it.http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/border-wall-house-republicans-donald-trump-taxpayers/index.html

This is the Republican congress were talking about as well. The we don't want to spend money on anything congress especially infrastructure. How he's going to get them to approve of a 8 to 12 billion dollar project is beyond me. And his jerk off fantasy of getting Mexico to pay for it? No, you know what? Build the wall using our taxes, do it so you can see how Mexico isn't going to pay for something they never wanted in the first place.

My small amount of digging turned up that they'd passed the motion that will let them use reconciliation on the ACA repeal, which Ryan has said will also include a defunding of Planned Parenthood. The vote was apparently 51-48, with Paul voting with the Democrats (because of his concerns over how the Republicans are going about repealing the ACA).

This is the Republican congress were talking about as well. The we don't want to spend money on anything congress especially infrastructure. How he's going to get them to approve of a 8 to 12 billion dollar project is beyond me. And his jerk off fantasy of getting Mexico to pay for it? No, you know what? Build the wall using our taxes, do it so you can see how Mexico isn't going to pay for something they never wanted in the first place.

it was never about not spending money, it was about Obama. Many of the same people were in Congress during the Bush years, which took us from our greatest national surplus to our largest nation deficit (people like to conveniently ignore that the 2009 budget was Bush's, as the 2017 budget is Obama's). Obama cut that deficit by almost 2/3, but disregard that.

And the wall is so fucking stupid, it'll cost probably 20 Billion to built, it will need constant upkeep and repair (running the cost even higher), it's a giant fucking boondoggle with Mexico (who ranks third in the world in terms of buying American goods, behind Canada and the ENTIRE European FUCKING Union, thanks NAFTA!), and it's overall effect on immigration is still up for debate. In short, it's a stupid decision that could only have been made by a stupid idiot.

And there's a huge problem with the border wall I don't think Trump's addressed yet: Texas. Treaties forbid both America and Mexico to build anything in the Rio Grande's floodplains, which means he'd have to build much of the wall on what is currently private property. Most of said private property is owned by ranchers, whose livelihoods are tied to the land they own, so it's unlikely they'd sell. He could use eminent domain to get the land, but that would be a very risky move.

And there's a huge problem with the border wall I don't think Trump's addressed yet: Texas. Treaties forbid both America and Mexico to build anything in the Rio Grande's floodplains, which means he'd have to build much of the wall on what is currently private property. Most of said private property is owned by ranchers, whose livelihoods are tied to the land they own, so it's unlikely they'd sell. He could use eminent domain to get the land, but that would be a very risky move.

Or he just gets Texas to use eminent domain themselves, because that state's eminent domain laws are ridiculously lax. They've had no qualms doing that with the Trans-Pecos Pipeline, which provides exactly zero public good.

For much of the Cold war the code to launch US nuclear missiles was just a row of zeroes because that's what the default was. The fact that no one tried to launch the nukes while joking around or because they wanted to start WW3 is proof enough that people are capable of being good.

For much of the Cold war the code to launch US nuclear missiles was just a row of zeroes because that's what the default was. The fact that no one tried to launch the nukes while joking around or because they wanted to start WW3 is proof enough that people are capable of being good.

For much of the Cold war the code to launch US nuclear missiles was just a row of zeroes because that's what the default was. The fact that no one tried to launch the nukes while joking around or because they wanted to start WW3 is proof enough that people are capable of being good.

Knowing the launch codes would mean all of jack shit for pretty much everyone because contrary to popular belief, you cannot launch nuclear missiles remotely. It can only be done from the silo.

As for the operators themselves, I believe there's something like ten of them that have to hit the launch button simultaneously for anything to happen, and they're all armed and under orders to kill any fellow operators who try anything funny (as are the rest of the staff, most likely), so that option is also extremely unlikely.

Couple of interesting takeaways from a Marcotte article up on Slate (http://www.salon.com/2016/12/21/drain-the-swamp-of-all-those-p-c-liberals-turns-out-trumpers-dont-care-about-lobbyists-or-plutocrats/), the article looked into a new poll conducted by the Glover Park Group and Morning Consult.

(click to show/hide)

(http://media.salon.com/2016/12/financial-regulations.png)

Trump supporters are actually kind of divided about how much to regulate Wall St, except for a bunch of them that don't know or don't care.

(click to show/hide)

(http://media.salon.com/2016/12/foreign-trade.png)

Similar number are divided on whether foreign trade is a good or bad thing, with a similar number not knowing or caring.

(click to show/hide)

(http://media.salon.com/2016/12/h1-visas.png)

While they aren't united on economic issues it seems whole lot of them don't like continued immigration under H1 Visas, Melenia seems to be a blind spot.And Obamacare...

(click to show/hide)

(http://media.salon.com/2016/12/aca.png)

WHAAARGRBLLL...

Her takeaway.

Quote

...new polling data suggesting that Trump voters are an incoherent mess when you ask them about regulating the financial industries or corruption in politics, but have a strongly cohesive ideology when it comes to race or gender issues.

But, but I thought it was all about draining swamps and the white working class, also something about "liberal elites".

Because calling everyone who wanted to vote for Trump "racist and sexist" worked out so well in 2016. That's why Hillary Clinton's going to be President in less than two weeks. And that's why there's a Democratic majority in the Senate.

Because calling everyone who wanted to vote for Trump "racist and sexist" worked out so well in 2016. That's why Hillary Clinton's going to be President in less than two weeks. And that's why there's a Democratic majority in the Senate.

...Oh wait, there isn't, and she won't be.

This. Trying to shame people into turning against Trump only helped him and the GOP. Doubling down will just make things worse.

Because calling everyone who wanted to vote for Trump "racist and sexist" worked out so well in 2016. That's why Hillary Clinton's going to be President in less than two weeks. And that's why there's a Democratic majority in the Senate.

...Oh wait, there isn't, and she won't be.

Well if the data shows that Republicans who were in fact racist were more in favor of Trump than less racist candidates (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/01/trump-is-the-first-republican-in-modern-times-to-win-the-partys-nomination-on-anti-minority-sentiments/?utm_term=.05027d77b6e6) why not call it by it's name? Oh, I forgot. Pesky facts hurt Repub feels, my bad.

Yeah, economics played a part in this election. But when surveyed Trump voters are united in issues towards race, religion, migration and gender-the "culture war" issues. Not so much economics, to stay mum about this because you might upset some on the fence voters is to encourage willful ignorance.

Brexit was also more about "values" like support of capital punishment and opposing ethnic diversity (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/personal-values-brexit-vote/) than it was about the economy.

Quote

This is shown in figure 4. Disciplining children and whipping sex criminals (circled), keeping the nation safe, protecting social order and skepticism (‘few products live up to the claims of their advertisers…products don’t last as long as they used to’) correlate with Brexit sentiment. These attitude dimensions cluster within the third of the map known as the ‘Settlers’, for whom belonging, certainty, roots and safety are paramount. This segment is also disproportionately opposed to immigration in virtually every country Dade has sampled. By contrast, people oriented toward success and display (‘Prospectors’), or who prioritise expressive individualism and cultural equality (‘Pioneers’) voted Remain.

Considering how tight the election was (less than 80,000 votes over three states), the economic issues could well have pushed Trump over the top, but the base was the bigoted stuff.

And one thing I found interesting about the sexism was that the sort of sexists who supported Trump were the actively woman-hating kind of sexists. The traditional-gender-roles sexists did not go disproportionately to Trump, even though President isn't exactly a "traditional role" for women in US society.

Considering how tight the election was (less than 80,000 votes over three states), the economic issues could well have pushed Trump over the top, but the base was the bigoted stuff.

And one thing I found interesting about the sexism was that the sort of sexists who supported Trump were the actively woman-hating kind of sexists. The traditional-gender-roles sexists did not go disproportionately to Trump, even though President isn't exactly a "traditional role" for women in US society.

I agree that economic issues could well have been an issue in the former "rust belt" areas, butwhites across the socioeconomic spectrum overwhelmingly voted for Trump (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html). The glue that held them together was whiteness, not class.

I agree that the Centrist parties the world over aren't doing enough to adress middle class and working class concerns because they work for the upper class, but people tut tutting others for merely identifying the nativist, xenophobic and quite frankly racist and sexist trends taking place across the world are fooling themselves.

There's also the assumption that those voting Trump would have even been aware of the scorn of the "East Coast elites" or felt sore because of their accusations of racism given that Trump voters don't even consume the same media as Democrat voters. (http://www.ibtimes.com/watching-fox-makes-viewers-lean-republican-researchers-say-1772450)

Considering how tight the election was (less than 80,000 votes over three states), the economic issues could well have pushed Trump over the top, but the base was the bigoted stuff.

And one thing I found interesting about the sexism was that the sort of sexists who supported Trump were the actively woman-hating kind of sexists. The traditional-gender-roles sexists did not go disproportionately to Trump, even though President isn't exactly a "traditional role" for women in US society.

I agree that economic issues could well have been an issue in the former "rust belt" areas, but whites across the socioeconomic spectrum overwhelmingly voted for Trump (http://This is shown in figure 4. Disciplining children and whipping sex criminals (circled), keeping the nation safe, protecting social order and skepticism (‘few products live up to the claims of their advertisers…products don’t last as long as they used to’) correlate with Brexit sentiment. These attitude dimensions cluster within the third of the map known as the ‘Settlers’, for whom belonging, certainty, roots and safety are paramount. This segment is also disproportionately opposed to immigration in virtually every country Dade has sampled. By contrast, people oriented toward success and display (‘Prospectors’), or who prioritise expressive individualism and cultural equality (‘Pioneers’) voted Remain.). The glue that held them together was whiteness, not class.

I agree that the Centrist parties the world over aren't doing enough to adress middle class and working class concerns because they work for the upper class, but people tut tutting others for merely identifying the nativist, xenophobic and quite frankly racist and sexist trends taking place across the world are fooling themselves.

There's also the assumption that those voting Trump would have even been aware of the scorn of the "East Coast elites" or felt sore because of their accusations of racism given that Trump voters don't even consume the same media as Democrat voters. (http://www.ibtimes.com/watching-fox-makes-viewers-lean-republican-researchers-say-1772450)

Your first link doesn't seem to be working. And your second link doesn't say that Republicans and Democrats consume different media, just that partisan outlets influence people's votes.

Because calling everyone who wanted to vote for Trump "racist and sexist" worked out so well in 2016. That's why Hillary Clinton's going to be President in less than two weeks. And that's why there's a Democratic majority in the Senate.

...Oh wait, there isn't, and she won't be.

Well if the data shows that Republicans who were in fact racist were more in favor of Trump than less racist candidates (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/01/trump-is-the-first-republican-in-modern-times-to-win-the-partys-nomination-on-anti-minority-sentiments/?utm_term=.05027d77b6e6) why not call it by it's name? Oh, I forgot. Pesky facts hurt Repub feels, my bad.

Yeah, economics played a part in this election. But when surveyed Trump voters are united in issues towards race, religion, migration and gender-the "culture war" issues. Not so much economics, to stay mum about this because you might upset some on the fence voters is to encourage willful ignorance.

Brexit was also more about "values" like support of capital punishment and opposing ethnic diversity (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/personal-values-brexit-vote/) than it was about the economy.

Quote

This is shown in figure 4. Disciplining children and whipping sex criminals (circled), keeping the nation safe, protecting social order and skepticism (‘few products live up to the claims of their advertisers…products don’t last as long as they used to’) correlate with Brexit sentiment. These attitude dimensions cluster within the third of the map known as the ‘Settlers’, for whom belonging, certainty, roots and safety are paramount. This segment is also disproportionately opposed to immigration in virtually every country Dade has sampled. By contrast, people oriented toward success and display (‘Prospectors’), or who prioritise expressive individualism and cultural equality (‘Pioneers’) voted Remain.

How about that?

I don't think I ever mentioned anything about 'don't upset the poor Republicans', but hey, thanks for putting those words in my mouth. I'm sure as a liberal Democrat, it's totally fair to basically call me a Republican sympathizer. My point was, that strategy didn't win. And as we've talked about earlier, talking about how "all those Trump voters are just a bunch of racists and sexists" didn't actually sway anyone away from Trump, which is kind of appalling considering how terrible a candidate he was. And yet, we're still hearing about it. I'm no Trump voter, I personally despise the man and think he's going to ruin our country, along with every one of his corporatist, slimy, and yes, bigoted cabinet picks. But let's be real here - the media message over the last year has been "Voting for Trump makes you a racist, a sexist, and a terrible person", and only after November 8th are people starting to realize that no, it doesn't necessarily mean that.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this so I'll just leave this here, I've gotta go get dinner anyway.

Considering how tight the election was (less than 80,000 votes over three states), the economic issues could well have pushed Trump over the top, but the base was the bigoted stuff.

And one thing I found interesting about the sexism was that the sort of sexists who supported Trump were the actively woman-hating kind of sexists. The traditional-gender-roles sexists did not go disproportionately to Trump, even though President isn't exactly a "traditional role" for women in US society.

I agree that economic issues could well have been an issue in the former "rust belt" areas, but whites across the socioeconomic spectrum overwhelmingly voted for Trump (http://This is shown in figure 4. Disciplining children and whipping sex criminals (circled), keeping the nation safe, protecting social order and skepticism (‘few products live up to the claims of their advertisers…products don’t last as long as they used to’) correlate with Brexit sentiment. These attitude dimensions cluster within the third of the map known as the ‘Settlers’, for whom belonging, certainty, roots and safety are paramount. This segment is also disproportionately opposed to immigration in virtually every country Dade has sampled. By contrast, people oriented toward success and display (‘Prospectors’), or who prioritise expressive individualism and cultural equality (‘Pioneers’) voted Remain.). The glue that held them together was whiteness, not class.

I agree that the Centrist parties the world over aren't doing enough to adress middle class and working class concerns because they work for the upper class, but people tut tutting others for merely identifying the nativist, xenophobic and quite frankly racist and sexist trends taking place across the world are fooling themselves.

There's also the assumption that those voting Trump would have even been aware of the scorn of the "East Coast elites" or felt sore because of their accusations of racism given that Trump voters don't even consume the same media as Democrat voters. (http://www.ibtimes.com/watching-fox-makes-viewers-lean-republican-researchers-say-1772450)

Your first link doesn't seem to be working. And your second link doesn't say that Republicans and Democrats consume different media, just that partisan outlets influence people's votes.

I don't think I ever mentioned anything about 'don't upset the poor Republicans', but hey, thanks for putting those words in my mouth. I'm sure as a liberal Democrat, it's totally fair to basically call me a Republican sympathizer. My point was, that strategy didn't win. And as we've talked about earlier, talking about how "all those Trump voters are just a bunch of racists and sexists" didn't actually sway anyone away from Trump, which is kind of appalling considering how terrible a candidate he was. And yet, we're still hearing about it. I'm no Trump voter, I personally despise the man and think he's going to ruin our country, along with every one of his corporatist, slimy, and yes, bigoted cabinet picks. But let's be real here - the media message over the last year has been "Voting for Trump makes you a racist, a sexist, and a terrible person", and only after November 8th are people starting to realize that no, it doesn't necessarily mean that.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this so I'll just leave this here, I've gotta go get dinner anyway.

I don't know if the word "deplorables" counts as a strategy, it's true that Clinton campaigned negatively but that one instance aside more negativity was aimed at the candidate than the support base. In any case, merely mentioning that a whole lot of Trump voters are racist and sexist isn't an attempt to sway. It's what the Trump voters suggest themselves when polled. It's data, it's not a strategy to win an election that happened last year.

The media reporting that a lot of Trump voters seemed to be motivated by racial animus wasn't a campaign strategy either, it's what the media are supposed to do. Report on a political phenomenon that's happening. You could argue they were wrong, but the data seems to be pointing to the conclusion that they were right about Trumps base being motivated at least in part by plain old racism.

Don't insult Lex Luthor like that. He's actually fucking intelligent and is an actual self-made man instead of some rando that inherited a lot of money from daddy and then pissed it away on failed business ventures.

Because calling everyone who wanted to vote for Trump "racist and sexist" worked out so well in 2016. That's why Hillary Clinton's going to be President in less than two weeks. And that's why there's a Democratic majority in the Senate.

...Oh wait, there isn't, and she won't be.

This. Trying to shame people into turning against Trump only helped him and the GOP. Doubling down will just make things worse.

As per FiveThirtyEight (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/stop-saying-trumps-win-had-nothing-to-do-with-economics/):

Quote

Measures of racism and sexism (http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf), and markers of social status such as a college degree, did a much better job predicting whom voters would support [than economic issues].

So, while it isn't fair to say ALL Trump voters are racist, there is actual statistically significant evidence that people with more racial animus and insensitivity voted for Casino Mussolini. Further, it is no secret that Trump is a shitbag racist (https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4r2yxs/a_final_response_to_the_tell_me_why_trump_is/). Other studies show how closely linked race was to Trump's election: (1) almost 50% of Trump supporters said that black people were more violent and criminal (http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-ELECTION-RACE/010020H7174/USA-ELECTION-RACE.jpg), with another 40% saying that black people were more lazy, than white people, and (2) white people became more likely to vote Trump when told that racial groups would outnumber white people in 2042 (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1368430216677304).

What is more, while you previously said that Trump lost white voters, vis-a-vis Romney, it is important to unpack white voters as a group; Trump did better with uneducated whites than Romney by a considerable measure while doing worse with educated whites (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-doing-worse-than-romney-did-among-white-voters/) (and almost 40% of Michiganders and 47% of Wisconsinites are white without a college degree, IIRC). Finally, it has been known for decades that college education decreases racial animus and insensitivity (http://newyorksociologist.org/Radloff.pdf).

All in all, I have no problem saying that racism and sexism played a huge part in Trump's election. Certainly more so than the economy, and maybe just as much as the Republican "team" mentality.

What's irritating is that if you mention the undeniable effect racism still has in modern politics people line up to tell you that accusing people of being racist "didn't help last time". Pointing out that something exists is not an accusation, certainly not an accusation leveled at Trump voters in order to induce guilt.The most conservative members of this forum, Hof and Conty respectively, can't vote in US elections because they aren't US citizens. Also, the 2016 election is in the past tense.

Pointing out how racial bias affects political behavior is not the same as accusing individuals of a moral failing for being racist much less asking those people to change their behavior, people's subconscious biases affect the way they vote and can have more baring on their voting behavior than their stated intentions (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/23/whom-are-you-voting-for-this-guy-can-read-your-mind/?utm_term=.ecec673b4450). If we want to understand how Mr Trump got to Washington, welp the data suggests that racism is part of the reason.

My apologies, then. I've gotten so used to people saying "everyone who voted Trump is a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic nutjob, feel terrible" that I've developed a knee-jerk reaction. It doesn't help that being painted by the media as a bunch of said deplorable people is actually one of the primary complaints of my Trump-voting friends (as much as I can't stand their votes, they are friends...). Nevertheless, I seem to have misunderstood you.

My apologies, then. I've gotten so used to people saying "everyone who voted Trump is a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic nutjob, feel terrible" that I've developed a knee-jerk reaction. It doesn't help that being painted by the media as a bunch of said deplorable people is actually one of the primary complaints of my Trump-voting friends (as much as I can't stand their votes, they are friends...). Nevertheless, I seem to have misunderstood you.

My apologies to you for insinuating that you were trying to protect the feels of Trumpkins, that was shitty of me.

"It appears that some of the people who voted for Trump did so because they are racist."

"ARE YOU CALLING ME A RACIST?!"

...See, we in Finland have a saying "the dog that yelps is the one that got hit by the lump of wood" which, surprisingly is not about cruelty towards animals, and means that the original accusation wasn't aimed specifically at anyone so if someone does start protesting then it probably means that they fit the description and are trying to defend themselves.

It's a proverb, they don't always make sense. Unfortunately it also means that people don't sometimes get the point. For example, I was looking for a good translation to this particular proverb and found a forum where someone complained about it because "doesn't that mean that if I insult Africans then *magical sound* I become a nigger?" ...No. That's not what it means.

I mean the point basically is "the one that screams in pain is the one that is in pain" kinda dealie. Why was someone throwing around sticks or firewood? It's not clear. Maybe the dogs were barking in the night and the owner wanted to shut 'em up?

It's a proverb, they don't always make sense. Unfortunately it also means that people don't sometimes get the point. For example, I was looking for a good translation to this particular proverb and found a forum where someone complained about it because "doesn't that mean that if I insult Africans then *magical sound* I become a nigger?" ...No. That's not what it means.

I mean the point basically is "the one that screams in pain is the one that is in pain" kinda dealie. Why was someone throwing around sticks or firewood? It's not clear. Maybe the dogs were barking in the night and the owner wanted to shut 'em up?

Makes sense, I've always just assumed Lana was a Trump voter, but that gives more circumstantial evidence.

It's a proverb, they don't always make sense. Unfortunately it also means that people don't sometimes get the point. For example, I was looking for a good translation to this particular proverb and found a forum where someone complained about it because "doesn't that mean that if I insult Africans then *magical sound* I become a nigger?" ...No. That's not what it means.

I mean the point basically is "the one that screams in pain is the one that is in pain" kinda dealie. Why was someone throwing around sticks or firewood? It's not clear. Maybe the dogs were barking in the night and the owner wanted to shut 'em up?

Makes sense, I've always just assumed Lana was a Trump voter, but that gives more circumstantial evidence.

I'm not about to accuse Lana of being a deep cover Trumpkin, it's entirely possible to be a socially conservative Democrat. I don't know what your motives are, I've no reason to suspect dishonesty and without further information I'm not about to hazard a guess.

That said Lana, pointing out the influence of racism in an election isn't the same as calling people racist. It's also not an either/or choice between racism and the economy. Racist attitudes don't exist in a vacuum, support for France's National Front exist in areas where unemployment is high (http://www.politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/5628/Stephan_Thesis.pdf) and of course the Nazis and other Fascist groups arose in the context of the Great Depression. To say that racism is a major factor in Trump's success is not the same as saying all his supporters are a bunch of racists.

I'm not about to accuse Lana of being a deep cover Trumpkin, it's entirely possible to be a socially conservative Democrat. I don't know what your motives are, I've no reason to suspect dishonesty and without further information I'm not about to hazard a guess.

That said Lana, pointing out the influence of racism in an election isn't the same as calling people racist. It's also not an either/or choice between racism and the economy. Racist attitudes don't exist in a vacuum, support for France's National Front exist in areas where unemployment is high (http://www.politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/5628/Stephan_Thesis.pdf) and of course the Nazis and other Fascist groups arose in the context of the Great Depression. To say that racism is a major factor in Trump's success is not the same as saying all his supporters are a bunch of racists.

Not disagreeing with you there. But I think the role of racism in Trump's election has been exaggerated.

I guess your quoting the Daily Bell who are known for promoting belief in "cultural Marxism" (http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/nelson-hultberg-cultural-marxism-the-corruption-of-america/) seems a tad socially conservative, especially when there are less long winded explanations (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kafkatrapping) that don't involve pegging responsibility on the phenomenon on to one particular faction or persuasion.

Regardless your belief that the effect of racism in the election was exaggerated should be coupled with reasons why. The fact that more minorities voted for Trump than Romney is not sufficient. It doesn't actually show that this invalidates the theory that racism played a major role in Trump's election.

presumably flamboyant and bizarre assassins, because life is apparently genre shifted to a really, really weird Bond story.

...Russian intelligence service teaming up with an exxentric US billionaire who is about to become the president? Yeah, that's a Bond movie plot. Do you think the KGB is going to pull out the umbrella that shoots poison darts from storage just for this?

WHY ARE YOU SO INCOMPETENT? I can perfectly understand the evil, selfish and corrupt people rise to power but is it too much to ask that they are at least smart so that we can go "Yeah, the prez turned out to be evil but can you really blame us? His campaign was so masterfully done that it could have fooled anyone."

During the press conference yesterday, Trump's stoolies brought out a bunch of folders filled with papers they wouldn't let reporters see because it contained his "business plan". The papers were all blank.

I guess your quoting the Daily Bell who are known for promoting belief in "cultural Marxism" (http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/nelson-hultberg-cultural-marxism-the-corruption-of-america/) seems a tad socially conservative, especially when there are less long winded explanations (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kafkatrapping) that don't involve pegging responsibility on the phenomenon on to one particular faction or persuasion.

Cultural Marxism is a thing (https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf). And even if the site is socially conservative, that doesn't make me so for agreeing with them on some things. I agree with Dick Cheney on same-sex marriage, but that doesn't make me a neocon.

As for why I picked that article, I wanted a more elaborate analysis of the term. I also wanted to discuss it in a social justice context. But you're right, it's not just used by SJWs.

Regardless your belief that the effect of racism in the election was exaggerated should be coupled with reasons why. The fact that more minorities voted for Trump than Romney is not sufficient. It doesn't actually show that this invalidates the theory that racism played a major role in Trump's election.

I do believe that it played a significant role, I just disagree with the notion that it was the factor.

During the press conference yesterday, Trump's stoolies brought out a bunch of folders filled with papers they wouldn't let reporters see because it contained his "business plan". The papers were all blank.

Ironbite-WE'RE ALL GONNA FUCKING DIE!

It's worse than that. The papers were supposed to address ethics concerns (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-press-conference-folders-business-plan-empire-blank-fake-handover-donald-jr-eric-a7523426.html).

During the press conference yesterday, Trump's stoolies brought out a bunch of folders filled with papers they wouldn't let reporters see because it contained his "business plan". The papers were all blank.

Doesn't sound any different from the "diploma" at my college graduation ceremony. The real one was sent in the mail.

FFS, if you believe that modern identity politics is secretly a shadowy fifth column of super secret Marxists then you give them a hell of a lot more organisational credit than what guys like this (http://i.imgur.com/OsiuQQX.jpg) are due.

It was only 75 years ago that the Nazis were literally on a crusade against cultural bolshevism (http://www.vox.com/culture/2016/12/14/13576192/alt-right-sexism-recruitment). I could never have predicted a more transparent rebrand.

FFS, if you believe that modern identity politics is secretly a shadowy fifth column of super secret Marxists then you give them a hell of a lot more organisational credit than what guys like this (http://i.imgur.com/OsiuQQX.jpg) are due.

Just because a term's frequently (mis)used by paranoid anti-Semites doesn't mean it's not real (http://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-1-45299).

Anyone else have him randomly PM them? Apparently because im not a fan of BLM he thinks im "like the type of guy I can get along with.". LOL. Im not a right wing nut job like him. Might like BLM or third wave feminism, but im still a a million miles away from him.

What makes you think I'm a "right-wing nutjob?"

I can't speak for IanC, but your generally anti-feminist, anti-PC attitude, complete with references to "cultural Marxism" is a dead ringer for "right-wing nutjob". You predictably take up the cause of the right-wing outrage-of-the-week (remember Vox Day tampering with the Hugos?) and FQA always pummels you for it. You've got nothing else.

Nothing except 8-year-olds, dude.

Yeah, this pretty much sums it up. This is why even though Ironchew is an edgelord, I enjoy him. Because he gots smarts.

FFS, if you believe that modern identity politics is secretly a shadowy fifth column of super secret Marxists then you give them a hell of a lot more organisational credit than what guys like this (http://i.imgur.com/OsiuQQX.jpg) are due.

Just because a term's frequently (mis)used by paranoid anti-Semites doesn't mean it's not real (http://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-1-45299).

(https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/89879/width926/image-20150728-7665-1iu4wk1.jpg)Uncle:Yes Comrades, we will bring about a workers revolt in the west by dividing the left into competing tribes that are happy so long as they have enough people from marginalized grouplets in executive level jobs.Igor:Oh fuck, he's been at the Stolichnaya again...Uncle:: Igor for the gulag, MORE STOLICHNAYA FOR EVERYBODIES!!!Igor *as trapdoor opens beneath his feet*:Aiiieeeeeeeee...

Anyone else have him randomly PM them? Apparently because im not a fan of BLM he thinks im "like the type of guy I can get along with.". LOL. Im not a right wing nut job like him. Might like BLM or third wave feminism, but im still a a million miles away from him.

What makes you think I'm a "right-wing nutjob?"

I can't speak for IanC, but your generally anti-feminist, anti-PC attitude, complete with references to "cultural Marxism" is a dead ringer for "right-wing nutjob". You predictably take up the cause of the right-wing outrage-of-the-week (remember Vox Day tampering with the Hugos?) and FQA always pummels you for it. You've got nothing else.

Nothing except 8-year-olds, dude.

Yeah, this pretty much sums it up. This is why even though Ironchew is an edgelord, I enjoy him. Because he gots smarts.

FFS, if you believe that modern identity politics is secretly a shadowy fifth column of super secret Marxists then you give them a hell of a lot more organisational credit than what guys like this (http://i.imgur.com/OsiuQQX.jpg) are due.

Just because a term's frequently (mis)used by paranoid anti-Semites doesn't mean it's not real (http://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-1-45299).

(https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/89879/width926/image-20150728-7665-1iu4wk1.jpg)Uncle:Yes Comrades, we will bring about a workers revolt in the west by dividing the left into competing tribes that are happy so long as they have enough people from marginalized grouplets in executive level jobs.Igor:Oh fuck, he's been at the Stolichnaya again...Uncle:: Igor for the gulag, MORE STOLICHNAYA FOR EVERYBODIES!!!Igor *as trapdoor opens beneath his feet*:Aiiieeeeeeeee...

OK, let me make one thing clear: I don't think Cultural Marxism is some kind of grand conspiracy. Just want to put that idea to rest.

Oh FFS Lana, Cultural Marxism is a theory where the Joos Frankfurt School conspired to destroy western civilization from within, because reasons. That is a conspiracy theory from it's foundation stone up.

As far as the United States is concerned historically the greatest proponents of identity politics were Democrats pre Nixon and Republicans post and none of the people promoting the identity politics I'm referring to were remotely Marxist.

Oh FFS Lana, Cultural Marxism is a theory where the Joos Frankfurt School conspired to destroy western civilization from within, because reasons. That is a conspiracy theory from it's foundation stone up.

As far as the United States is concerned historically the greatest proponents of identity politics were Democrats pre Nixon and Republicans post and none of the people promoting the identity politics I'm referring to were remotely Marxist.

The article cites Trent Schroyer as coming up with the term, Schroyer's thesis is still that the Frankfurt School were cultural Marxists because they cited Marx in developing Critical Theory.

Great, fun and good except that Marx's theory that dialectical materialism was the driver of history, is based on certain things being objectively true, like conflict being caused by material needs-according to Marx anyway. Critical theory which gave birth to postmodernism flatly rejects objectivity in knowledge (http://www.iep.utm.edu/frankfur/#H2). The Frankfurt school could be reasonably said to be influenced by Marxism, or post Marxist but Marxist-it aint.

Western Marxism did indeed depart from Soviet Marxism b/c piles of corpses will turn off anybody but none of the people constructing the shibboleth of "Cultural Marxism" have shown that the people they called "Cultural Marxists" were in fact, you know, Marxist.

The real reason "Cultural Marxism" was embraced by paranoid nutzoids everywhere is that at the time "Marxist" was the trigger word that led conservatives to circle the wagons much like "Muslim" is now. At best both Marxists and some of the ideological descendants of the Frankfurt School are both involved in social justice movements for their own reasons.

Alright Lana, having read your article I am going to have to call bullshit on the Cultural Marxism thing.

a) Your article claims that it can be used for more than the conspiracy theory and talks about several decades old thingy which has never been talked about again.

b) When someone talks about it now they are talking about the conspiracy theory, this includes the website that you were defending. That the phrase once had a different meaning is a red herring. Example: If someone calls me a "faggoty barbarian cuck" would fairness demand that I consider that he he may be using the original meaning of "barbarian" which referred to people living north of Rome who did not speak latin (as I sadly do not) and ignore that he also used the words "faggoty" and "cuck" and was clearly insulting me? Context matters.

Alright Lana, having read your article I am going to have to call bullshit on the Cultural Marxism thing.

a) Your article claims that it can be used for more than the conspiracy theory and talks about several decades old thingy which has never been talked about again.

b) When someone talks about it now they are talking about the conspiracy theory, this includes the website that you were defending. That the phrase once had a different meaning is a red herring. Example: If someone calls me a "faggoty barbarian cuck" would fairness demand that I consider that he he may be using the original meaning of "barbarian" which referred to people living north of Rome who did not speak latin (as I sadly do not) and ignore that he also used the words "faggoty" and "cuck" and was clearly insulting me? Context matters.

You mean to tell me that Dynamic Paragon 3.0 did NOT read their links. Well, color me shocked.

Yeah I'm thinking this too. Lana's posting about the same topics, in the same style, with the same phrases and getting into the same fights as Dynamic Paragon.

Look, Lana if you aren't Paragon I apologize. Dynamic Dragon was a full of himself asshole who got banned for making sockpuppets but came back with a sockpuppet called Ultimate Paragon, where got even worse become devote gamergater and even defending childporn on 8chan because free speech before getting banned again. He had a very similar posting style on a lot of the same topic as you. If I've misread you and you are a different person I am sorry for the mistake but I hope you understand the concern over not wanting a childporn defender back.

So, after thinking over the Donald Trump pee story, I have decided that I have no ethical dilemmas in talking about it as though it is true. Now, disregard the fact that the golden shower portion was the least worrisome part of the dossier (there are 33 pages detailing ties between Trump and Putin). My main dilemma was that the entire report was unverified and could be nothing more than a 4chan hoax (though, Chris Steele going into hiding casts strong doubt on that). The reason, after considerable thought, that I have no problem saying Trump enjoys golden showers is because if the shoe were on the other foot, Trump would have no problem saying it about a political opponent: for example when Trump accused Hillary of murdering people (http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/16/trump-accused-hillary-clinton-murder-disastrous-mike-pence-announcement.html), accused Obama of being born in Kenya (http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-birther/), or accused Ted Cruz' father of killing Lee Harvey Oswald (http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/trump-ted-cruz-father-222730).

I mean, I don't know if this dossier is true, and that troubles me the most: I really don't think there is anything Trump could do that would make me say "no, he'd never do that," and that speaks volumes to his lack of character. However, even if completely bullshit, Trump has more than earned being the victim of a fake news smear.

Alright Lana, having read your article I am going to have to call bullshit on the Cultural Marxism thing.

a) Your article claims that it can be used for more than the conspiracy theory and talks about several decades old thingy which has never been talked about again.

b) When someone talks about it now they are talking about the conspiracy theory, this includes the website that you were defending. That the phrase once had a different meaning is a red herring. Example: If someone calls me a "faggoty barbarian cuck" would fairness demand that I consider that he he may be using the original meaning of "barbarian" which referred to people living north of Rome who did not speak latin (as I sadly do not) and ignore that he also used the words "faggoty" and "cuck" and was clearly insulting me? Context matters.

a) It's been largely drowned out in all the misuse, but people still do talk about Cultural Marxism in the original sense. For example, this book (https://books.google.com/books?id=Pa3DCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+critical+turn+in+education&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi989a_k8PRAhWIlxoKHaa8AUkQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=the%20critical%20turn%20in%20education&f=false) was published just last year.

b) That's not necessarily the case. There are people who use it to describe a particular flavor of left-wing authoritarianism, as my article says:

Quote

Sometimes, when people complain about “cultural Marxism”, their emphasis seems to be on something more specific. They are thinking, perhaps, of a left-wing variety of cultural authoritarianism: a tendency to criticize movies, video games, and other cultural products in a very harsh way that implies a need for government censorship. Short of that, it may at least imply the need for aggressive social policing and an environment of public shaming.

I wasn't really defending the article, it was a load of conspiratorial nonsense. I was just pointing out that there really is such a thing as Cultural Marxism, albeit something entirely different from what the article says. As for whether the article is necessarily reflective of the website's politics, that's not necessarily true. Pat Buchanan was a talking head on MSNBC for almost ten years, but they're pretty far from being paleocons.

Yeah I'm thinking this too. Lana's posting about the same topics, in the same style, with the same phrases and getting into the same fights as Dynamic Paragon.

Look, Lana if you aren't Paragon I apologize. Dynamic Dragon was a full of himself asshole who got banned for making sockpuppets but came back with a sockpuppet called Ultimate Paragon, where got even worse become devote gamergater and even defending childporn on 8chan because free speech before getting banned again. He had a very similar posting style on a lot of the same topic as you. If I've misread you and you are a different person I am sorry for the mistake but I hope you understand the concern over not wanting a childporn defender back.

If he's as bad as you say he was, then I'm glad I'm not him. Just for your information, my typing isn't normally so clipped. I've just been busy, so I try to be efficient.

a) It's been largely drowned out in all the misuse, but people still do talk about Cultural Marxism in the original sense. For example, this book (https://books.google.com/books?id=Pa3DCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+critical+turn+in+education&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi989a_k8PRAhWIlxoKHaa8AUkQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=the%20critical%20turn%20in%20education&f=false) was published just last year.

The book refers to a movement that existed in the sixties and seventies.

b) That's not necessarily the case. There are people who use it to describe a particular flavor of left-wing authoritarianism, as my article says:

The article that says this

Quote

Current left-wing activism can, indeed, display hyperbolic, philistine, and authoritarian tendencies, but these have little to do with any influence from Marx, Soviet totalitarianism, or the work of the Frankfurt School. They have more, I suspect, to do with tendencies toward moral and political purity in almost any movement that seeks social change.

Meaning the author does not say that modern "authoritarian" tendencies in left wing activism like, I dunno-political correctness gone mad or power + prejudice "isms", have anything to do with Marx or Marxism.

So yeah, OK. I'll grant you. "Cultural Marxism" has been used, to describe the application of Marxism to the social sciences, as your book says-primarily in the sixties and seventies. The term is commonly used today to promulgate the batshit insane notion of various progressive ideas being a Trojan Horse to bring about the destruction of the west by a super secret cabal of Marxists/Jews/Cthulhu/Insert The Blank.

It's a bit like the term "libertarian", you could point to the fact that the original use of the term or it's use by left leaning libertarians bares little resemblance to the way it's used today, but because of the way it is used today, on the internet in particular, it's broadly understood to be a term describe someone who thinks Ayn Rand was the greatest thing ever.

Back to the start of this brouhaha, I suggested you might be culturally conservative because you were citing a publication that suggests the left is the sole source of kafkatrapping and which penned an editorial (http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/nelson-hultberg-cultural-marxism-the-corruption-of-america/)suggesting that Cultural Marxism is bad in the "it's all a Trojan horse to undermine civilisation sense", not the "obscure application of Marxism to the social sciences" sense.

Quote

This was the purpose of the ideology of Cultural Marxism — to root out the fundamentals of Judeo-Christian civilization and the splendid Camelot of Freedom it had created in America from 1776 to 1913. What is horrifying is that it has been triumphant. Marx has not buried us in an economic sense as Khrushchev boasted he would; but Marx has buried us in a cultural sense as Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs planned over 80 years ago. James Jaeger's film demonstrates this in lucid fashion that is at once fascinating and abhorrent.

That's not an "application of Marx to the social sciences", that's this.

And you expect us to believe that the Alt-Right may be referring to the several decades old political thingy when they say that the Cultural Marxists are trying to destroy western countries and flood them with Muslims? Because if that's not what you are saying then I don't get how it is relevant to this discussion.

“In January Trump will start governing and will have to make compromises. Even small ones will trigger squabbles between the ‘alt-right’. ‘Trump betrayed us.’ ‘No, you’re betraying us for saying Trump betrayed us.’ And so on. The alt-right’s appearance of influence will diminish more and more as they start to fight amongst themselves.”

In an email interview Peter Brimelow, founder of the webzine Vdare.com, which alleges Mexican plots to remake the US, said Trump’s failure to deliver “important bones” could trigger a backlash. “I think the right of the right is absolutely prepared to revolt. It’s what they do.”

There is, however, a catch: Weber, Taylor and Brimelow – all classified as “extremists” by the Southern Poverty Law Center – said Trump’s victory energised the far-right and that the movement can grow with or without White House help.

Basically, the Alt-right are a mishmash of racists, nazis and libertards and they are going to tear each other apart no matter what but the question is will they also do other damage and can some of them rise up to be politically relevant in the next elections.

I think one side fuels the other side. George w bush made way for the rise of Obama. Fears of Obama created the tea party and then the alt right. 4 to 8 years of Trump, deregulation, mass privatization, corporate abuse and a rising interest in Bernie sanders might fuel a socialist movement. Trump voters like Obama voters will most likely increasingly feel disenfranchised as they feel their candidate didn't really help them much and most likely won't turn out to vote next time. It happens time and time again.

And you expect us to believe that the Alt-Right may be referring to the several decades old political thingy when they say that the Cultural Marxists are trying to destroy western countries and flood them with Muslims? Because if that's not what you are saying then I don't get how it is relevant to this discussion.

Hell no! I was saying that people can (mis)use the term "Cultural Marxism" without being loony Jew-haters. Maybe they're academics talking about the history of sociology, or maybe they're geeks angry at the aggressive, heavy-handed "criticism" of their hobbies. Either way, that doesn't make them alt-right deplorables.

I think one side fuels the other side. George w bush made way for the rise of Obama. Fears of Obama created the tea party and then the alt right. 4 to 8 years of Trump, deregulation, mass privatization, corporate abuse and a rising interest in Bernie sanders might fuel a socialist movement. Trump voters like Obama voters will most likely increasingly feel disenfranchised as they feel their candidate didn't really help them much and most likely won't turn out to vote next time. It happens time and time again.

That's one reason I'm against political correctness, because I'm worried about the backlash. Political correctness helped get Trump into the Oval Office. Who knows what damage the PC crowd's doubling down might cause?

How do you define "the PC crowd" "doubling down" in this context? Do you, like others seem to, refer to people calling supporters of a racist racist for supporting a racist, or is it something else? For that matter, how do you define "political correctness" in the particular context of it aiding Trump's presidency?

Merkal and Hollande aren't betting on Trump helping them or the EU. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/16/europes-fate-is-in-our-hands-angela-merkels-defiant-reply-to-trump)

Quote

We Europeans have our fate in our own hands,” the German chancellor said after the publication of the US president-elect’s interviews with the Times and German tabloid Bild. “He has presented his positions once more. They have been known for a while. My positions are also known.”

Translation, we have Russian puppets on both sides of our borders now. If Germany and France go for ultra nationalist governments I've no doubt Putin will start moving his sphere of influence aggressively westwards.

How do you define "the PC crowd" "doubling down" in this context? Do you, like others seem to, refer to people calling supporters of a racist racist for supporting a racist, or is it something else? For that matter, how do you define "political correctness" in the particular context of it aiding Trump's presidency?

Before I say anything else, I'd like to point out that saying Trump's supporters are racist is unfair. Voters don't magically take on their candidate's character flaws. Even the Guardian admitted (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/donald-trump-supporters-bigots-left-demonise) that saying Trump supporters are all racist is dangerously reductionist.

When I talk about doubling down, I talk about them engaging in the same rhetoric that turned so many people to Trump. Do you know how many articles and talking heads blame whites, or men, or white men for Trump's election? Way too many. Here are just a few examples:

Now for your second question. I'm talking about people emphasizing "white privilege" and "male privilege" at a time when income inequality is at its worst in decades. I'm talking about student radicals trying to get "dead white men" removed from their classes. I'm talking about SJWs bullying people for the stupidest of reasons. I'm talking about pearl-clutching nitwits trying to play the role of the fiction police. To sum up, I'm talking about a disturbing undercurrent in the American Left in recent years, one that has resulted in the Democratic Party falling to its lowest point since Reconstruction. What I'm saying is that when you find yourself in a hole, it may be a good idea to stop digging.

Merkal and Hollande aren't betting on Trump helping them or the EU. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/16/europes-fate-is-in-our-hands-angela-merkels-defiant-reply-to-trump)

Quote

We Europeans have our fate in our own hands,” the German chancellor said after the publication of the US president-elect’s interviews with the Times and German tabloid Bild. “He has presented his positions once more. They have been known for a while. My positions are also known.”

Translation, we have Russian puppets on both sides of our borders now. If Germany and France go for ultra nationalist governments I've no doubt Putin will start moving his sphere of influence aggressively westwards.

Don't get me started on Putin. If he died tomorrow, you could probably guess what I'd be singing.

Hell no! I was saying that people can (mis)use the term "Cultural Marxism" without being loony Jew-haters. Maybe they're academics talking about the history of sociology, or maybe they're geeks angry at the aggressive, heavy-handed "criticism" of their hobbies. Either way, that doesn't make them alt-right deplorables.

Okay Paragon I'm curious. Name me one example of someone nowadays who calls people "cultural marxists" and isn't a loony Jew hater, or willing accomplice of loony Jew-haters.

How do you define "the PC crowd" "doubling down" in this context? Do you, like others seem to, refer to people calling supporters of a racist racist for supporting a racist, or is it something else? For that matter, how do you define "political correctness" in the particular context of it aiding Trump's presidency?

Before I say anything else, I'd like to point out that saying Trump's supporters are racist is unfair. Voters don't magically take on their candidate's character flaws. Even the Guardian admitted (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/donald-trump-supporters-bigots-left-demonise) that saying Trump supporters are all racist is dangerously reductionist.

Not all of them, but I and others have shown with evidence, in this very thread that a buttload of them are. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.

Again we are reducing the election to economic issues OR racism. It was economic issues AND racism. Racism may not have been the tipping point for Trump's support and you could reasonably argue that it wasn't.

The Democrats failure to reach out to previously loyal voters who voted for Obama but don't live in the big cities or didn't see the material benefits of his administration. His siding with the banks instead of the people who were screwed by them. Clinton's insistence that America was already great when for many Americans it wasn't. Sure as eggs are eggs all that was important.

But not calling a fair chunk of Trump's supporters racist is counterfactual (http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-ELECTION-RACE/010020H7174/USA-ELECTION-RACE.jpg), and the notion of not calling people what they are because you might upset their feelings is like a caricature of "the PC crowd"

EDIT: "The Guardian" didn't admit that. It wasn't an editorial, it was an opinion piece. In others racism was pegged as a contributing factor, (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/how-did-donald-trump-win-analysis)

White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/). Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts. What is more, can have multiple conversations and values regarding white privilege and economic equality: it is a false dichotomy that we mush choose between one or the other (https://medium.com/@marcushjohnson/we-should-call-brocialism-what-it-is-white-populism-ad257608ed52#.uupyjqe62) that is insidiously pushed to silence civil rights (https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*sqjUycQpVrWo6k_kH0awsA.jpeg). You don't have to be an ally, and you can continue to talk about economics all you want. Further, by focusing on identity politics and Govenor McPotty's trans-bathroom bill, Democrats won a meaningful race in North Carolina: (http://www.vox.com/2016/12/13/13936226/samantha-bee-identity-politics-democrats) it is not our way back, it is our way forward in changing times where racial minorities and LGBTQ people continue to make up a larger cross-section of society, particularly as prominent republicans continue to go full racist shitbag. But, as I posted earlier, reminding white people that they will make up less than 50% of this country in 2042 scares them and makes them more likely to vote for the Donald.

And I've already posted above how measurements of racial insensitivity correlated with, in a statistically significant way, one's willingness to vote for Trump, as well as an academic article explaining the cause and effect there.

Hell no! I was saying that people can (mis)use the term "Cultural Marxism" without being loony Jew-haters. Maybe they're academics talking about the history of sociology, or maybe they're geeks angry at the aggressive, heavy-handed "criticism" of their hobbies. Either way, that doesn't make them alt-right deplorables.

Okay Paragon I'm curious. Name me one example of someone nowadays who calls people "cultural marxists" and isn't a loony Jew hater, or willing accomplice of loony Jew-haters.

How do you define "the PC crowd" "doubling down" in this context? Do you, like others seem to, refer to people calling supporters of a racist racist for supporting a racist, or is it something else? For that matter, how do you define "political correctness" in the particular context of it aiding Trump's presidency?

Before I say anything else, I'd like to point out that saying Trump's supporters are racist is unfair. Voters don't magically take on their candidate's character flaws. Even the Guardian admitted (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/donald-trump-supporters-bigots-left-demonise) that saying Trump supporters are all racist is dangerously reductionist.

Not all of them, but I and others have shown with evidence, in this very thread that a buttload of them are. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.

Again we are reducing the election to economic issues OR racism. It was economic issues AND racism. Racism may not have been the tipping point for Trump's support and you could reasonably argue that it wasn't.

The Democrats failure to reach out to previously loyal voters who voted for Obama but don't live in the big cities or didn't see the material benefits of his administration. His siding with the banks instead of the people who were screwed by them. Clinton's insistence that America was already great when for many Americans it wasn't. Sure as eggs are eggs all that was important.

But not calling a fair chunk of Trump's supporters racist is counterfactual (http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-ELECTION-RACE/010020H7174/USA-ELECTION-RACE.jpg), and the notion of not calling people what they are because you might upset their feelings is like a caricature of "the PC crowd"

EDIT: "The Guardian" didn't admit that. It wasn't an editorial, it was an opinion piece. In others racism was pegged as a contributing factor, (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/how-did-donald-trump-win-analysis)

Yes, there are racists among Trump's support base. Plenty of them, in fact. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't make such broad accusations. There's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade, but would you call a rake or hoe a spade?

White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/). Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:

Quote

Black men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.

There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.

What is more, can have multiple conversations and values regarding white privilege and economic equality: it is a false dichotomy that we mush choose between one or the other (https://medium.com/@marcushjohnson/we-should-call-brocialism-what-it-is-white-populism-ad257608ed52#.uupyjqe62) that is insidiously pushed to silence civil rights (https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*sqjUycQpVrWo6k_kH0awsA.jpeg). You don't have to be an ally, and you can continue to talk about economics all you want.

There's nothing wrong with talking about systematic inequality in addition to economics issues. People can be concerned about multiple issues at the same time. My problem is with saying that white people automatically have it better. In 2013, most poor people in the United States were white (http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf). How do you think a laid off factory worker with a dead wife, three kids to feed, and a bum leg is going to take being lectured about his "white male privilege"?

Further, by focusing on identity politics and Govenor McPotty's trans-bathroom bill, Democrats won a meaningful race in North Carolina: (http://www.vox.com/2016/12/13/13936226/samantha-bee-identity-politics-democrats) it is not our way back, it is our way forward in changing times where racial minorities and LGBTQ people continue to make up a larger cross-section of society, particularly as prominent republicans continue to go full racist shitbag. But, as I posted earlier, reminding white people that they will make up less than 50% of this country in 2042 scares them and makes them more likely to vote for the Donald.

Not all white people, as the study's abstract admits:

Quote

Among Whites low in ethnic identification, in contrast, the racial shift condition had no effect on group status threat or support for anti-immigrant policies, but did cause decreased positivity toward Trump and decreased opposition to political correctness. Group status threat did not mediate these effects.

Your study proves that whites who place a premium on their whiteness are more likely to be afraid of being outnumbered. It doesn't prove that white Americans are an army of Archie Bunkers.

And I've already posted above how measurements of racial insensitivity correlated with, in a statistically significant way, one's willingness to vote for Trump, as well as an academic article explaining the cause and effect there.

Hell no! I was saying that people can (mis)use the term "Cultural Marxism" without being loony Jew-haters. Maybe they're academics talking about the history of sociology, or maybe they're geeks angry at the aggressive, heavy-handed "criticism" of their hobbies. Either way, that doesn't make them alt-right deplorables.

Okay Paragon I'm curious. Name me one example of someone nowadays who calls people "cultural marxists" and isn't a loony Jew hater, or willing accomplice of loony Jew-haters.

There's nobody named Paragon here.

Dude I know it's you okay. You're using the same talking points almost word for word. You should have at least tried to throw people off your sent by saying things you wouldn't have as Paragon, like I dunno, pretend you're in love with Zoe Quinn or something.

But nice dodge, you avoided the question. Again can you show me anyone outside the alt-right gasthekikesracewarnow crowd who uses the term Cultural Marxist unironically?

Quote

Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:

Quote

Black men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.

There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.

(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17owbiibrj1i2jpg/original.jpg)

Nobody is saying that white men who didn't vote for Trump are to blame. The fact remains that the majority did and that racism was a major factor.

White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/). Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:

Quote

Black men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.

It's a false equivelance, one has statistics to back up the claim the other was pulled out of thin air. 58% of white voters across all demographics, 67% of whites without a college degree and 53% of males across all demographics voted for Trump (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0) if gang membership is anything to go by black men aren't even the largest group in gangs. (https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Demographics) Not that this is topical as your other claim is just a strawman.

Queens statement is a topical fact about the election, it's not a call to arms against whites, men or the uneducated. If it is and Queen is saying she hates men, whites and non college graduates for being who they are she's free to contradict me on this point.

White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/). Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:

Quote

Black men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.

There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.

No you're just intentionally being dense to misinterpret what I am saying. I said, as a group. As in, as a group, white men skewed Trump, and if they did not skew for Trump to such a degree, he wouldn't be president. That is not to say all white men, because as I said, statistics (and the website I linked to used percentages instead of blanket statements). This is why we already know you're paragon.

What is more, can have multiple conversations and values regarding white privilege and economic equality: it is a false dichotomy that we mush choose between one or the other (https://medium.com/@marcushjohnson/we-should-call-brocialism-what-it-is-white-populism-ad257608ed52#.uupyjqe62) that is insidiously pushed to silence civil rights (https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*sqjUycQpVrWo6k_kH0awsA.jpeg). You don't have to be an ally, and you can continue to talk about economics all you want.

There's nothing wrong with talking about systematic inequality in addition to economics issues. People can be concerned about multiple issues at the same time. My problem is with saying that white people automatically have it better. In 2013, most poor people in the United States were white (http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf). How do you think a laid off factory worker with a dead wife, three kids to feed, and a bum leg is going to take being lectured about his "white male privilege"?

Shut up Paragon and read your links. You focus on raw numbers, but your link states that poverty rates among the general population is 14.3%, whites (non-hispanic) have a poverty rate of 9.9%, and blacks have a poverty rate of 25.8%. And to put a point on this, while we cannot say for certain that a random white person has it better than a random black person, we can say that--in the aggregate--that white people do have it better (based on the fact that only 1/10, and not 1/4 of them, live in poverty). These statistics that you provided us prove that.

Further, by focusing on identity politics and Govenor McPotty's trans-bathroom bill, Democrats won a meaningful race in North Carolina: (http://www.vox.com/2016/12/13/13936226/samantha-bee-identity-politics-democrats) it is not our way back, it is our way forward in changing times where racial minorities and LGBTQ people continue to make up a larger cross-section of society, particularly as prominent republicans continue to go full racist shitbag. But, as I posted earlier, reminding white people that they will make up less than 50% of this country in 2042 scares them and makes them more likely to vote for the Donald.

Not all white people, as the study's abstract admits:

Quote

Among Whites low in ethnic identification, in contrast, the racial shift condition had no effect on group status threat or support for anti-immigrant policies, but did cause decreased positivity toward Trump and decreased opposition to political correctness. Group status threat did not mediate these effects.

Your study proves that whites who place a premium on their whiteness are more likely to be afraid of being outnumbered. It doesn't prove that white Americans are an army of Archie Bunkers.

Thank you for explaining that nuance, but it doesn't undercut my previous point.... We are not talking about those who did not support Trump, but those who did support Trump. So, whether this made some white people less likely to vote for Trump is irrelevant because the crux of the study is to show that race and racial fears played a role for many Trump voters.

And I've already posted above how measurements of racial insensitivity correlated with, in a statistically significant way, one's willingness to vote for Trump, as well as an academic article explaining the cause and effect there.

Wasn't that poll taken before Trump won the primaries?

Nope, October 25-31, 2016 (http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf). Otherwise known as 5 months after the last competitive Republican Primary.

Hell no! I was saying that people can (mis)use the term "Cultural Marxism" without being loony Jew-haters. Maybe they're academics talking about the history of sociology, or maybe they're geeks angry at the aggressive, heavy-handed "criticism" of their hobbies. Either way, that doesn't make them alt-right deplorables.

Okay Paragon I'm curious. Name me one example of someone nowadays who calls people "cultural marxists" and isn't a loony Jew hater, or willing accomplice of loony Jew-haters.

There's nobody named Paragon here.

Dude I know it's you okay. You're using the same talking points almost word for word. You should have at least tried to throw people off your sent by saying things you wouldn't have as Paragon, like I dunno, pretend you're in love with Zoe Quinn or something.

But nice dodge, you avoided the question. Again can you show me anyone outside the alt-right gasthekikesracewarnow crowd who uses the term Cultural Marxist unironically?

Why don't you turn back a few pages? My article established that.

And why are you so obsessed with this paragon guy? To the point of accusing me of being him based solely on some (supposedly) similar opinions. Do you two have unresolved issues?

Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:

Quote

Black men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.

There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.

(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17owbiibrj1i2jpg/original.jpg)

Nobody is saying that white men who didn't vote for Trump are to blame. The fact remains that the majority did and that racism was a major factor.

Maybe she didn't, but that's what it sounded like to me. I just really don't like statements implying collective responsibility. Can I tell you why?

White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/). Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:

Quote

Black men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.

There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.

No you're just intentionally being dense to misinterpret what I am saying. I said, as a group. As in, as a group, white men skewed Trump, and if they did not skew for Trump to such a degree, he wouldn't be president. That is not to say all white men, because as I said, statistics (and the website I linked to used percentages instead of blanket statements). This is why we already know you're paragon.

Well, when I hear "as a group", it sounds like you're blaming the group, which is a hop, a skip, and a jump away from collective guilt. Sorry about jumping to conclusions.

What is more, can have multiple conversations and values regarding white privilege and economic equality: it is a false dichotomy that we mush choose between one or the other (https://medium.com/@marcushjohnson/we-should-call-brocialism-what-it-is-white-populism-ad257608ed52#.uupyjqe62) that is insidiously pushed to silence civil rights (https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*sqjUycQpVrWo6k_kH0awsA.jpeg). You don't have to be an ally, and you can continue to talk about economics all you want.

There's nothing wrong with talking about systematic inequality in addition to economics issues. People can be concerned about multiple issues at the same time. My problem is with saying that white people automatically have it better. In 2013, most poor people in the United States were white (http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf). How do you think a laid off factory worker with a dead wife, three kids to feed, and a bum leg is going to take being lectured about his "white male privilege"?

Shut up Paragon and read your links. You focus on raw numbers, but your link states that poverty rates among the general population is 14.3%, whites (non-hispanic) have a poverty rate of 9.9%, and blacks have a poverty rate of 25.8%. And to put a point on this, while we cannot say for certain that a random white person has it better than a random black person, we can say that--in the aggregate--that white people do have it better (based on the fact that only 1/10, and not 1/4 of them, live in poverty). These statistics that you provided us prove that.

That's true, but it's cold comfort for those individual white people who live in poverty. And there are millions who do. The fact that people who share their skin color are less likely to be poor doesn't negate their suffering.

Further, by focusing on identity politics and Govenor McPotty's trans-bathroom bill, Democrats won a meaningful race in North Carolina: (http://www.vox.com/2016/12/13/13936226/samantha-bee-identity-politics-democrats) it is not our way back, it is our way forward in changing times where racial minorities and LGBTQ people continue to make up a larger cross-section of society, particularly as prominent republicans continue to go full racist shitbag. But, as I posted earlier, reminding white people that they will make up less than 50% of this country in 2042 scares them and makes them more likely to vote for the Donald.

Not all white people, as the study's abstract admits:

Quote

Among Whites low in ethnic identification, in contrast, the racial shift condition had no effect on group status threat or support for anti-immigrant policies, but did cause decreased positivity toward Trump and decreased opposition to political correctness. Group status threat did not mediate these effects.

Your study proves that whites who place a premium on their whiteness are more likely to be afraid of being outnumbered. It doesn't prove that white Americans are an army of Archie Bunkers.

Thank you for explaining that nuance, but it doesn't undercut my previous point.... We are not talking about those who did not support Trump, but those who did support Trump. So, whether this made some white people less likely to vote for Trump is irrelevant because the crux of the study is to show that race and racial fears played a role for many Trump voters.

I wasn't trying to. I was just pointing out (admittedly somewhat rudely) that you said "white people" without any qualifiers, which I found somewhat misleading.

And I've already posted above how measurements of racial insensitivity correlated with, in a statistically significant way, one's willingness to vote for Trump, as well as an academic article explaining the cause and effect there.

Wasn't that poll taken before Trump won the primaries?

Nope, October 25-31, 2016 (http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf). Otherwise known as 5 months after the last competitive Republican Primary.

Good way to prove that you aren't Dogmatic Paragon is to start acting like an adult and reading your own links before you post em and actually debating your points rather than moving the goalposts when you are losing.

And for the rest of you:

(http://i.imgur.com/rVQQyUV.jpg)

Enough with the joke, the jury is still out whether Lana is just UP dogding ban again but focus on the debate rather than the person.

Now for your second question. I'm talking about people emphasizing "white privilege" and "male privilege" at a time when income inequality is at its worst in decades. I'm talking about student radicals trying to get "dead white men" removed from their classes. I'm talking about SJWs bullying people for the stupidest of reasons. I'm talking about pearl-clutching nitwits trying to play the role of the fiction police. To sum up, I'm talking about a disturbing undercurrent in the American Left in recent years, one that has resulted in the Democratic Party falling to its lowest point since Reconstruction. What I'm saying is that when you find yourself in a hole, it may be a good idea to stop digging.

And how do you define "bullying" and "stupid reasons"? And what kind of behaviour, in your eyes, constitutes "trying to play the role of the fiction police"? And how do you personally define an "SJW" (and, possibly to pre-empt you, "extremism" in the context of the social left)? These terms have been used as dogwhistles for any vehement and insufficiently submissive leftist sentiment or critical sociological analysis of fiction and its impact, so you'll understand if I'm raising an eyebrow at the terminology when it's unelaborated on. (And, actually, now that I'm on the subject, I still hold to the belief that neither Hindus disliking their religion's holy chants to be performed as entertainment by non-Hindus nor expanding already-extant codes of conduct on campus to include "don't be bigoted" count as "political correctness gone mad" in and of themselves.)

Furthermore, pretty much none of this has any relevance to Trump's presidency. Unless I'm incorrect, Trump's campaign devoted exactly zero time to any particular male positivity or explicit affirming message to whites specifically (and no, that doesn't mean he's not racist), and I'll bet my testicles it didn't touch on current trends in art critique. If someone's response to being told white privilege exists is to flock a guy whose mission statement contains "Mexican immigrants are drug dealers and rapists", then it's fair to assume they already heard the siren call of racialist ideology.

And I maintain that calling Trump supporters racist isn't unreasonable. Sure, not every single person who voted for Trump did it out of racist feelings, but as you and others seem to have espoused, feelings don't particularly matter. Endeavouring to put an openly virulent bigot into office continues to be an inherently racist act regardless of one's internal feelings about it, because you can't just slice Donald Trump into pieces and put the ones you personally like into office. That's not how voting works. When you put in the Trump you think will create jobs despite his several bankruptcies, you also put in the Trump who called Mexican immigrants drug dealers and rapists live and wanted to register and round up Muslims. Voters don't magically take on the character flaws of the candidates they support, but if you give matches to the KKK so they can burn crosses, you don't magically become uncomplicit in racist terrorism just because you were doing to be a good neighbour or whatever.

Now for your second question. I'm talking about people emphasizing "white privilege" and "male privilege" at a time when income inequality is at its worst in decades. I'm talking about student radicals trying to get "dead white men" removed from their classes. I'm talking about SJWs bullying people for the stupidest of reasons. I'm talking about pearl-clutching nitwits trying to play the role of the fiction police. To sum up, I'm talking about a disturbing undercurrent in the American Left in recent years, one that has resulted in the Democratic Party falling to its lowest point since Reconstruction. What I'm saying is that when you find yourself in a hole, it may be a good idea to stop digging.

And how do you define "bullying" and "stupid reasons"?

Doxing, threats, trying to get people fired, etc. As for "stupid reasons", I'd say "drawing Rose Quartz too thin (http://fusion.net/story/223425/zamii-steven-universe-fandom/)" is one of the dumbest.

And what kind of behaviour, in your eyes, constitutes "trying to play the role of the fiction police"?

To me, "fiction policing" is more than just criticism and analysis. It's criticizing fiction one finds problematic in a disproportionately harsh way. It's saying that fiction corrupts, or that it has a negative impact on society, based on questionable, spurious or even nonexistent evidence. It's trying to prevent the distribution of these products for no reason other than one personally does not like them. Fiction policing comes from everywhere on the political spectrum, whether it's Jack Thompson raving about "murder simulators" or a radfem making giant leaps in logic to say that porn promotes sex trafficking.

And how do you personally define an "SJW" (and, possibly to pre-empt you, "extremism" in the context of the social left)? These terms have been used as dogwhistles for any vehement and insufficiently submissive leftist sentiment or critical sociological analysis of fiction and its impact, so you'll understand if I'm raising an eyebrow at the terminology when it's unelaborated on. (And, actually, now that I'm on the subject, I still hold to the belief that neither Hindus disliking their religion's holy chants to be performed as entertainment by non-Hindus nor expanding already-extant codes of conduct on campus to include "don't be bigoted" count as "political correctness gone mad" in and of themselves.)

There are multiple kinds of SJWs, but I think a good general definition is somebody who claims to be "fighting the good fight" on behalf of women and/or minorities, but ends up doing more harm than good out of extremism and/or hypocrisy. I'd go on, but I think this article (http://observer.com/2016/02/the-totalitarian-doctrine-of-social-justice-warriors/) sums it up better than I ever could.

As a side note, there's nothing inherently wrong with rules against bigotry. But at a time when the bar for intolerance is constantly being lowered, I'd say people have every right to be nervous about being crushed under the wheels of "social justice".

Furthermore, pretty much none of this has any relevance to Trump's presidency. Unless I'm incorrect, Trump's campaign devoted exactly zero time to any particular male positivity or explicit affirming message to whites specifically (and no, that doesn't mean he's not racist), and I'll bet my testicles it didn't touch on current trends in art critique. If someone's response to being told white privilege exists is to flock a guy whose mission statement contains "Mexican immigrants are drug dealers and rapists", then it's fair to assume they already heard the siren call of racialist ideology.

Or maybe they don't like being told that they're inherently privileged because of their skin color while struggling to make ends meet, and decide to vote against the party that (directly or indirectly) promotes such nonsense.

And I maintain that calling Trump supporters racist isn't unreasonable. Sure, not every single person who voted for Trump did it out of racist feelings, but as you and others seem to have espoused, feelings don't particularly matter. Endeavouring to put an openly virulent bigot into office continues to be an inherently racist act regardless of one's internal feelings about it, because you can't just slice Donald Trump into pieces and put the ones you personally like into office. That's not how voting works. When you put in the Trump you think will create jobs despite his several bankruptcies, you also put in the Trump who called Mexican immigrants drug dealers and rapists live and wanted to register and round up Muslims. Voters don't magically take on the character flaws of the candidates they support, but if you give matches to the KKK so they can burn crosses, you don't magically become uncomplicit in racist terrorism just because you were doing to be a good neighbour or whatever.

Funny you should talk about Mexican immigrants, because Trump did surprisingly well among Latino voters (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-probably-did-better-with-latino-voters-than-romney-did/).

But with that said, labeling all Trump voters as racist is not only unfair and simplistic, it's dangerous. If somebody is called racist based solely on how they voted, would they be more or less likely to vote the way the name-caller wants? These days, trying to shame people into doing something is more likely to have the opposite effect.

Maybe she didn't, but that's what it sounded like to me. I just really don't like statements implying collective responsibility. Can I tell you why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SaD-gSZO4

Quote

"If Muslims have to take responsibility for every member of their community, so do we!"

Samantha Bee

Nice rebuttal. Too bad I never said anything remotely like that about Muslims.

I fear the point was missed here. No less a personage than Barack Obama has asked Muslims to take responsibility for their worst members (http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/responsibility-responsible-violence/). Black people are frequently (http://ijr.com/2014/11/209189-4-take-personal-responsi-damnbility-one-mans-straight-talk-black-community-goes-viral/) tasked (https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/4gmeoo/cmv_black_people_need_to_begin_accepting_their/) with (http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/its-time-for-black-america-to-blame-black-america/) taking (http://downtrend.com/71superb/black-pastor-tells-blacks-to-stop-blaming-whites-for-all-of-their-problems)responsibility for the worst members of their community and I don't hear you complaining. I believe Sam was just saying, you know - what's good for the goose...

To me, "fiction policing" is more than just criticism and analysis. It's criticizing fiction one finds problematic in a disproportionately harsh way.

Criticism should not be disproportionately harsh? I'm sorry Mr Uwe Boll, your film was kind of, somewhat not good and Mr M. Night" Shyamalan your plots could possibly be seen by some as not making sense, but only in certain areas mind you.

There are multiple kinds of SJWs, but I think a good general definition is somebody who claims to be "fighting the good fight" on behalf of women and/or minorities, but ends up doing more harm than good out of extremism and/or hypocrisy. I'd go on, but I think this article sums it up better than I ever could.

Trouble is, much like "cultural Marxism" in common usage it's come to mean something different. Now it's just a lazy way of saying do-gooder who gives a crap about other people.

As a side note, there's nothing inherently wrong with rules against bigotry. But at a time when the bar for intolerance is constantly being lowered, I'd say people have every right to be nervous about being crushed under the wheels of "social justice".

Yeah.

(http://www.publiusforum.com/images/donald_trump.jpg)

That's what people are worried about being crushed under the wheels of.

Maybe she didn't, but that's what it sounded like to me. I just really don't like statements implying collective responsibility. Can I tell you why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SaD-gSZO4

Quote

"If Muslims have to take responsibility for every member of their community, so do we!"

Samantha Bee

Nice rebuttal. Too bad I never said anything remotely like that about Muslims.

I fear the point was missed here. No less a personage than Barack Obama has asked Muslims to take responsibility for their worst members (http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/responsibility-responsible-violence/). Black people are frequently (http://ijr.com/2014/11/209189-4-take-personal-responsi-damnbility-one-mans-straight-talk-black-community-goes-viral/) tasked (https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/4gmeoo/cmv_black_people_need_to_begin_accepting_their/) with (http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/its-time-for-black-america-to-blame-black-america/) taking (http://downtrend.com/71superb/black-pastor-tells-blacks-to-stop-blaming-whites-for-all-of-their-problems)responsibility for the worst members of their community and I don't hear you complaining. I believe Sam was just saying, you know - what's good for the goose...

Because it didn't come up. If it had, I would have. Like I said, I'm against collective responsibility in general.

To me, "fiction policing" is more than just criticism and analysis. It's criticizing fiction one finds problematic in a disproportionately harsh way.

Criticism should not be disproportionately harsh? I'm sorry Mr Uwe Boll, your film was kind of, somewhat not good and Mr M. Night" Shyamalan your plots could possibly be seen by some as not making sense, but only in certain areas mind you.

The key word is "problematic". There's a big difference between IHE losing his temper at The Amazing Bulk for being a horrible excuse for a movie and religious fanatics claiming that DnD leads teenagers to the Devil. One is an understandable, human response to watching a lazy, incomprehensible mess that's only a movie by dictionary definition. The other is a load of hysterical nonsense.

There are multiple kinds of SJWs, but I think a good general definition is somebody who claims to be "fighting the good fight" on behalf of women and/or minorities, but ends up doing more harm than good out of extremism and/or hypocrisy. I'd go on, but I think this article sums it up better than I ever could.

Trouble is, much like "cultural Marxism" in common usage it's come to mean something different. Now it's just a lazy way of saying do-gooder who gives a crap about other people.

Are you sure that's not the result of people trying to "reclaim" the term? That's not to say there aren't people abusing the term (I've seen it applied to some of DSP's critics), but when you have people like Laurie Penny saying that being a "social justice warrior" is something to be proud of, it's hard to say the dilution of the phrase rests entirely on their shoulders.

Are you sure that's not the result of people trying to "reclaim" the term? That's not to say there aren't people abusing the term (I've seen it applied to some of DSP's critics), but when you have people like Laurie Penny saying that being a "social justice warrior" is something to be proud of, it's hard to say the dilution of the phrase rests entirely on their shoulders.

Also, I know-not all white people yadda yadda. It's still a fact that mostly white people elected Trump (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/9/13571676/trump-win-racism-power) and over 40% of those white people are racist as balls (http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-ELECTION-RACE/010020H7174/USA-ELECTION-RACE.jpg). Those are factual statements, not a plot to make white people feel bad man.

The key word is "problematic". There's a big difference between IHE losing his temper at The Amazing Bulk for being a horrible excuse for a movie and religious fanatics claiming that DnD leads teenagers to the Devil. One is an understandable, human response to watching a lazy, incomprehensible mess that's only a movie by dictionary definition. The other is a load of hysterical nonsense.

Not everyone using the word "problematic" is calling for stuff to be banned. Yes Jack Thompson and BADD (Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons) did want to ban stuff, but I don't think they ever used the word "problematic".

Thinking that people using the term "problematic" is a portent of the banning police coming and banning the stuff you love is also lazy and hysterical.

Are you sure that's not the result of people trying to "reclaim" the term? That's not to say there aren't people abusing the term (I've seen it applied to some of DSP's critics), but when you have people like Laurie Penny saying that being a "social justice warrior" is something to be proud of, it's hard to say the dilution of the phrase rests entirely on their shoulders.

Also, I know-not all white people yadda yadda. It's still a fact that mostly white people elected Trump (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/9/13571676/trump-win-racism-power) and over 40% of those white people are racist as balls (http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-ELECTION-RACE/010020H7174/USA-ELECTION-RACE.jpg). Those are factual statements, not a plot to make white people feel bad man.

1. How do those Reddit links prove anything?

2. Yes, they are. See, if the rhetoric stopped there, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But then people go overboard and start assigning collective guilt to white America, or saying that all Trump voters are racists, and then the fecal matter hits the rotary impeller.

The key word is "problematic". There's a big difference between IHE losing his temper at The Amazing Bulk for being a horrible excuse for a movie and religious fanatics claiming that DnD leads teenagers to the Devil. One is an understandable, human response to watching a lazy, incomprehensible mess that's only a movie by dictionary definition. The other is a load of hysterical nonsense.

Not everyone using the word "problematic" is calling for stuff to be banned. Yes Jack Thompson and BADD (Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons) did want to ban stuff, but I don't think they ever used the word "problematic".

Thinking that people using the term "problematic" is a portent of the banning police coming and banning the stuff you love is also lazy and hysterical.[/quote]

It doesn't matter whether they actually use the word. People can say "problematic" without being censorious moral busybodies, and people can be censorious moral busybodies without saying "problematic". When I said "problematic" was the key word, I intended to clarify that I was speaking of OTT moralistic criticisms. Let's not get bogged down in issues of other people's semantics. What I'm talking about is the attitude, not the vocabulary.

They show folks using SJW are bottom feeding reptiles who probably didn't start tossing it about because someone tried to "reclaim" the term unironically. Frankly it proves as much as your assertion that it might have been SJWs trying to reclaim SJWness by taking the acronym back.

I wouldn't have a problem with it. But then people go overboard and start assigning collective guilt to white America, or saying that all Trump voters are racists, and then the fecal matter hits the rotary impeller. feel bad man.

Well that's a change of tune, see I distinctly recall you saying that calling them racist at all was unfair.

I'd like to point out that saying Trump's supporters are racist is unfair. Voters don't magically take on their candidate's character flaws.

They just give them their blessing.

America has voted already, well-at least the electoral college has voted in it's stead. Trump supporters are likely to get just as pissed at a nuanced statement saying that a percentage of them are racist as a flat out statement calling them all racist. After all, Hillary's "deplorables" comment made clear that she wasn't talking about every single Trump supporter or calling them all racist and look how that went over. We can discuss it or not, it's relevant to the topic but there's no point on holding back because you might piss off a Trump supporter.

They show folks using SJW are bottom feeding reptiles who probably didn't start tossing it about because someone tried to "reclaim" the term unironically. Frankly it proves as much as your assertion that it might have been SJWs trying to reclaim SJWness by taking the acronym back.

No, the first shows that there are right-wing idiots on Tumblr in addition to left-wing idiots, and the second makes a lot of claims with evidence for precisely none of them. Neither one proves that the term has been perverted by anti-SJWs. Nor do they prove that the term's been perverted to the extent you claim.

I wouldn't have a problem with it. But then people go overboard and start assigning collective guilt to white America, or saying that all Trump voters are racists, and then the fecal matter hits the rotary impeller. feel bad man.

Well that's a change of tune, see I distinctly recall you saying that calling them racist at all was unfair.

I'd like to point out that saying Trump's supporters are racist is unfair. Voters don't magically take on their candidate's character flaws.

They just give them their blessing.

America has voted already, well-at least the electoral college has voted in it's stead. Trump supporters are likely to get just as pissed at a nuanced statement saying that a percentage of them are racist as a flat out statement calling them all racist. After all, Hillary's "deplorables" comment made clear that she wasn't talking about every single Trump supporter or calling them all racist and look how that went over. We can discuss it or not, it's relevant to the topic but there's no point on holding back because you might piss off a Trump supporter.

No, I said that blanket labeling of them as "racist" is unfair. I have no problem with people saying some Trump supporters are racist, or that a significant portion of Trump supporters are racist, because that's objective fact. But when you say "Trump supporters" without any qualifiers, it kind of sounds like you're talking about every last one of them, at least to me.

Has anyone here actually made the claim that every single Trump supporter is racist?

I don't think so. The point has been that after everything Trump has said and his team has done everyone who voted him has lost any excuse to claim that they didn't know that Trump's administration is going to be racist and because of that they were complicit in helping racists rise to power.

Someone in particular mentioned that they will now refer to Trump voters as supporting racism because that is what they did even if they just said that they liked his hair or business expertise or whatever.

Has anyone here actually made the claim that every single Trump supporter is racist?

I don't think so. The point has been that after everything Trump has said and his team has done everyone who voted him has lost any excuse to claim that they didn't know that Trump's administration is going to be racist and because of that they were complicit in helping racists rise to power.

Someone in particular mentioned that they will now refer to Trump voters as supporting racism because that is what they did even if they just said that they liked his hair or business expertise or whatever.

Grand, good. Glad we all agree.

So, this topic is in fact about Mr Trump going to Washington and not about the arcane origins of the acronym "SJW" or the term "Cultural Marxism", right?

After all those stories about famous musicians refusing to perform at Trump's inauguration I just wonder why the heck did they waste their time asking people like Elton John and Ice-T who are not the kind of people who would willingly help Trump when they could have asked musicians who LIKE Trump. There's gotta be some right?

How about that Nugent guy who brandishes guns during his performances and threatened to kill Clinton and Obama? Doesn't he seem like a perfect match?

“Hahahahaha, I was just asked by a booking agent if I would consider djing at one of the inaugural balls for #trump ... Hahahahaha, wait, Hahahaha, really? I guess I’d DJ at an inaugural ball if as payment #trump released his tax returns. Also I would probably play public enemy and Stockhausen remixes to entertain the republicans. I’m still laughing. Hahahaha. So #trump what do you think, I DJ for you and you release your tax returns?”

This guy. (http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7572616/moby-open-letter-to-america-trump)

They can't get cover bands (https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/jan/17/bruce-springsteen-tribute-act-b-street-band-pull-out-of-trump-inauguration-gala) to perform.

But hey, Three Doors Down are playing-and their fans hate them for it! (https://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/ugh-3-doors-down-fans-respond-to-news-the-band-is-playing-trumps-inauguration/)

And I maintain that calling Trump supporters racist isn't unreasonable. Sure, not every single person who voted for Trump did it out of racist feelings, but as you and others seem to have espoused, feelings don't particularly matter. Endeavouring to put an openly virulent bigot into office continues to be an inherently racist act regardless of one's internal feelings about it, because you can't just slice Donald Trump into pieces and put the ones you personally like into office.

Also-the ultimate responsibility for the perversion of the term SJW rests on the same people who "perverted" your venerable academic term "Cultural Marxism". Take it up with them.

No, it doesn't. While I will agree that the label's been overused, much like the case with "alt-right", the fundamental meaning generally remains the same for those who use it pejoratively. There may be disagreements about where the line between "activist" and "SJW" begins, but it's a difference of degree rather than kind. For the most part, it's people like Laurie Penny who tried to redefine the term, possibly as an attempt to implicitly brand anybody complaining about SJWs as a hate-filled, backwards right-wing radical. The fundamental difference is this: the extreme right tried to redefine "Cultural Marxism" to lend a veneer of credibility to their ideas, while the extreme left tried to redefine "SJW" with possible ulterior motives.

Social justice extremism: reclaiming an insult used towards people for being highly socially leftist as a positive term. Verily she wants to instate a leftist tyranny where cishets are put to the sword. And surely "shaming critics" is the only reason anyone could have for reclaiming an insultive term, which is why people who self-identify as "queer" are doing it just to oppress the heteros. /s

Seriously though, your premise of "people who want to reclaim SJW are the real reason SJW is so misused" is easily rejectable because 1) you base it on one (1) person allegedly reclaiming "social justice warrior" to "make the critics look bad" 2) you don't even give a proper source of this heinous act of cisheterophobic propaganda. I googled "Laurie Penny SJW" and only got sources like Ralph Retort and Roosh V's website, which 1) are biased to the extreme 2) I will not be dignifying with traffic.

But this isn't about that, my mistake. This is about how calling supporters of racists being president racist people, because they do actively racist things, apparently became an unreasonable thing to say at some point? Because something something Trump did marginally better with latinos than some other cockhole?

Social justice extremism: reclaiming an insult used towards people for being highly socially leftist as a positive term. Verily she wants to instate a leftist tyranny where cishets are put to the sword. And surely "shaming critics" is the only reason anyone could have for reclaiming an insultive term, which is why people who self-identify as "queer" are doing it just to oppress the heteros. /s

Seriously though, your premise of "people who want to reclaim SJW are the real reason SJW is so misused" is easily rejectable because 1) you base it on one (1) person allegedly reclaiming "social justice warrior" to "make the critics look bad" 2) you don't even give a proper source of this heinous act of cisheterophobic propaganda. I googled "Laurie Penny SJW" and only got sources like Ralph Retort and Roosh V's website, which 1) are biased to the extreme 2) I will not be dignifying with traffic.

I can link you to numerous people who unironically call themselves "social justice warriors". Not to mention websites actively trying to redefine the term.

While it's true that people do abuse the term "SJW", I have yet to be convinced that it's been abused nearly as badly as is frequently claimed. I'm a very empirical person, so I generally don't trust such claims unless I have hard evidence. Most of the arguments being used to make those claims are opinion-based or reliant on anecdotal evidence. Besides, all this debate about whether it's still a valid term is distracting from the problems SJWs cause.

But this isn't about that, my mistake. This is about how calling supporters of racists being president racist people, because they do actively racist things, apparently became an unreasonable thing to say at some point? Because something something Trump did marginally better with latinos than some other cockhole?

Okay, I think we're getting too heated. Could we maybe chill? And while we're at it, let's try to stop talking past one another.

I'm a very empirical person, so I generally don't trust such claims unless I have hard evidence.

Remember that time I posted statistics and you were all "well, white people and fee fees." Yeah, I don't even need to call up Maury to tell that this quote is a lie.

There's a difference between backing up your arguments with statistics, and using said statistics to make blanket statements when they paint a more nuanced picture. Yes, I was wrong to assume you were assigning collective guilt, but I've grown to dislike blanket statements in general thanks to some... emotionally affecting experiences. If you'd said that a majority of white men voted for Trump, I wouldn't have cared less.

So Trump has been down in Mar-A-Largo and is calling it "Winter White House". Apparently he doesn't understand why the White House is where the President lives 24/7 and why he doesn't spend time in other places. So Trump Tower is gonna be "White House Summer" and we have this bullshit.....how soon does he quit I wonder?

Oh FFS of course some people unironically call themselves Social Justice Warrior, because it's unique among insults in that it combines three awesome things into an awesome-voltron. Combining the sheer over the top-ness with bitter fuck-you snark is what makes the insult work. Reclaiming it is simply boomeranging that snark in the other direction. That doesn't make Lurie Penny responsible for the terms popularity. It was a popular diss that she was reacting to, not the other way around.

Also, in my country we call Pauline Hanson's voters responsible for racism because even if you are the one token Asian that she apeared in the photo op with you'd have to be Blind Freddy not to know she's racist as fuck. Trump is like Hanson on crack and anybody alive on the planet not locked in a cell in supermax or in a coma since maybe the 1980s knows this!

But Lana I digress, because we all have in this very thread. Can we maybe start a new one to discuss this semantic argument about the origins of SJW-ness and cultural Marxism? Because here, now un this thread it's just an annoying derail.

Oh FFS of course some people unironically call themselves Social Justice Warrior, because it's unique among insults in that it combines three awesome things into an awesome-voltron. Combining the sheer over the top-ness with bitter fuck-you snark is what makes the insult work. Reclaiming it is simply boomeranging that snark in the other direction. That doesn't make Lurie Penny responsible for the terms popularity. It was a popular diss that she was reacting to, not the other way around.

Also, in my country we call Pauline Hanson's voters responsible for racism because even if you are the one token Asian that she apeared in the photo op with you'd have to be Blind Freddy not to know she's racist as fuck. Trump is like Hanson on crack and anybody alive on the planet not locked in a cell in supermax or in a coma since maybe the 1980s knows this!

But Lana I digress, because we all have in this very thread. Can we maybe start a new one to discuss this semantic argument about the origins of SJW-ness and cultural Marxism? Because here, now un this thread it's just an annoying derail.

Australia's own nativist dills, One Nation, have been pestering the Australian embassy for tickets. (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/one-nation-pestered-australian-embassy-officials-for-trump-inauguration-tickets-20170118-gtu3bb.html)They then crowed that they had been invited while the Prime Minister had not, the embassy clarified that it had told that the tickets were there if they wanted them-presumably because they couldn't scalp them. They then took to twitter claiming that Buzzfeeds verbatim quoting of One Nation's Senator Robert's bragging of exclusive invitations was "fake news".

Oh dear, looks like some dirty commie spy is going to shoot Trump from the book depository. Sad. I am sure that the private security firm that he is going to use to replace the Secret service (not a joke, he really has made such claims) are going to be devastated.

The Trump inauguration committee has finally found someone they don't want to perform, and it's Kanye West. Apparantly the performer is not 'Traditionally American' enough to perform. (http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/donald-trump-kanye-west) What that's a euphemism for I have no idea.

I suspect this might have rustled a few GOP jimmies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q604eed4ad0

Note to Lana, this is not saying that every single member of the GOP is a racist 'kay*-nor every member of the inauguration committee nor every on the fence voter we've never met. Their feels are safe with me.

*Steve over there in the corner is alright, he's a Rand acolyte. He just wants to kill the poor regardless of race, creed or colour.

Note to Lana, this is not saying that every single member of the GOP is a racist 'kay*-nor every member of the inauguration committee nor every on the fence voter we've never met. Their feels are safe with me.

*Steve over there in the corner is alright, he's a Rand acolyte. He just wants to kill the poor regardless of race, creed or colour.

I've heard that Trump's team is blaming the weather for shit turnout. Because apparently 58 degrees and light rain is a much bigger obstacle than the below freezing temperatures Obama had.

I should also point out that the (early) estimates are between 10,000 and 250,000. For perspective, Obama's 2013 inauguration had over a million people, while his 2009 inauguration reached over 1.8 million people.

I've heard that Trump's team is blaming the weather for shit turnout. Because apparently 58 degrees and light rain is a much bigger obstacle than the below freezing temperatures Obama had.

I should also point out that the (early) estimates are between 10,000 and 250,000. For perspective, Obama's 2013 inauguration had over a million people, while his 2009 inauguration reached over 1.8 million people.

Looking it up, Obama's 2009 Inauguration had highs of 30 degrees Fahrenheit, with lows around 19. For 2013 had temps around 35.

I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).

Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?

It's called impeachment. I know he'll do something impeachable in these next four years, hell his refusal to divest raises the emoluments issue and it's literally day one. Not to mention his complete disdain for rules and norms. But the GOP will never impeach him, even if it does come out that he was working with Putin and peeing on Russian prostitutes.

I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).

Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?

It's called impeachment. I know he'll do something impeachable in these next four years, hell his refusal to divest raises the emoluments issue and it's literally day one. Not to mention his complete disdain for rules and norms. But the GOP will never impeach him, even if it does come out that he was working with Putin and peeing on Russian prostitutes.

I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).

Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?

It's called impeachment. I know he'll do something impeachable in these next four years, hell his refusal to divest raises the emoluments issue and it's literally day one. Not to mention his complete disdain for rules and norms. But the GOP will never impeach him, even if it does come out that he was working with Putin and peeing on Russian prostitutes.

That can get him impeached as the GOP is nothing if not hypocritical about sex. Especially when he starts to become politically inconvenient.

I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).

Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?

It's called impeachment. I know he'll do something impeachable in these next four years, hell his refusal to divest raises the emoluments issue and it's literally day one. Not to mention his complete disdain for rules and norms. But the GOP will never impeach him, even if it does come out that he was working with Putin and peeing on Russian prostitutes.

I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).

Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?

It's called impeachment. I know he'll do something impeachable in these next four years, hell his refusal to divest raises the emoluments issue and it's literally day one. Not to mention his complete disdain for rules and norms. But the GOP will never impeach him, even if it does come out that he was working with Putin and peeing on Russian prostitutes.

I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).

Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?

It's called impeachment. I know he'll do something impeachable in these next four years, hell his refusal to divest raises the emoluments issue and it's literally day one. Not to mention his complete disdain for rules and norms. But the GOP will never impeach him, even if it does come out that he was working with Putin and peeing on Russian prostitutes.

But can the voters call an election and boot him out?

No.

Yeah, that whole "democracy" thing? Basically a facade.

Recall is, AFAIK, the exception in representative democracies, not the rule.

Also, so many Democratic Senators are up for re-election in 2018 that they literally cannot get to the 67 seats necessary to remove Trump from office, or override a veto. (They can't even get to the 60 they'd need to break a filibuster.)

GOP will impeach him sooner just to score points with the electorate and not get squished in the mid-terms.

Not before the damage is done.

A figure like Trump is politically useful for them at least in the short term, they can do all of the unpopular stuff-like gutting ACA without a replacement and blame him later when public opinion turns. The things that will negatively affect their base, the small business owners farmers and disenchanted rust belters are things the GOP desperately wants. Trump is the perfect fall guy.

Of course Trump is just as likely to blame them when it all turns to shit. What a happy, fun bunch.

Well, the health care thing is rather general and not very specific. Bad, yes, but not specific.

The specific first thing he did was the mentioned mortgage bit. Obama had ordered a 0.25-percentage-point rate cut for FHA-backed mortgages. (In concrete terms, this would have saved borrowers about $29/month on a $200,000 mortgage.) It's now been suspended over concerns about the amount of money the FHA has on hand.

Does anyone think that the Republicans actually have replacement plans for the aca? Cause it's going to be really shitty for everyone when premiums sky rocket because all of the young people leave the market because they won't want to buy insurance or can't afford it. I mean Republicans can't be this fucking stupid to not realize that it's going to hurt there re election chances if they really fuck this up. And hopefully dems aren't stupid enough to call them out on it.

While the schadenfreude is amusing and I look forward to more of it in the next four years, it shouldn't be taken without pointing out that Trump making bold faced lies about and to the press and his Sean Spicer, his press secretary, making a blanket statement of "we're going to hold the press accountable" (direct quote, by the way) without any sort of context or explanation sets a dangerous and terrifying precedent for how the Trump administration is going to handle PR.

Robert Riech claims that Republican insiders plan to use Trump to get what they want and then throw him under the bus.

Quote

Reich asked his friend what the GOP will do now that Trump is president.

“They’ll play along for a while,” the unidentified friend said. “They’ll get as much as they want – tax cuts galore, deregulation, military buildup, slash all those poverty programs, and then get to work on Social Security and Medicare – and blame him. And he’s such a fool he’ll want to take credit for everything.”

Asked what happens then, the Reich’s friend laughed and said, ‘They like [Vice President] Pence.” “Pence is their guy. They all think Trump is out of his mind,” he explained. “So the moment Trump does something really dumb – steps over the line – violates the law in a big stupid clumsy way … and you know he will …”

Note that this is someone claiming an anonymous source so it's unverified, but it makes sense. Also, there's no indication that the GOP will be any more tolerant of a free press or democracy than Trump himself.

The GOP never wanted Trump. Oh sure the Fringe that has come to dominate the GOP did but the GOP leadership? Nope. Not a single one of them wanted him. He's out of control and will never be brought to heel. They'd rather have Pence in there but Pence doesn't win elections. Trump does. And when they do get what they want out of him and he's made himself such an ass, look to see an impeachment started and stick. Probably around mid-terms.

Ironbite-so 2 years of this then the GOP throws Trump under the bus to get some form of moderates back.

I don't get it. Why would they gut everything and then blame trump for it? Shouldn't they be proud of all the bullshit they're going to do? It's like they know what they want to do will be extremely unpopular with the American people. So they need to put it on a fall guy.

I don't get it. Why would they gut everything and then blame trump for it? Shouldn't they be proud of all the bullshit they're going to do? It's like they know what they want to do will be extremely unpopular with the American people. So they need to put it on a fall guy.

Of course they know it's unpopular, but their corporate funders want it. (Or, at least, they want the tax cuts that they can get when they no longer have to fund that stuff.)

I don't get it. Why would they gut everything and then blame trump for it? Shouldn't they be proud of all the bullshit they're going to do? It's like they know what they want to do will be extremely unpopular with the American people. So they need to put it on a fall guy.

This is why. (http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/koch-brothers-are-smiling-white-house-will-be-packed-some-their-most-loyal-servants)(http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/kochs_3.jpg)

I'm betting on eight years of Trump. The polls are worse than useless, and it's become cool to hate the law. Getting impeached will just make him more popular, though it might not get to the point where the people overthrow the government if they impeach Trump

I'm betting on eight years of Trump. The polls are worse than useless, and it's become cool to hate the law. Getting impeached will just make him more popular, though it might not get to the point where the people overthrow the government if they impeach Trump

That is not true. The polls erred, but the error was well within the margin. To be more precise, FiveThirtyEight predicted that Hillary would win the national popular vote by 3.8%. She wound up winning by 2.1%. Now, 1.7 is a big difference, but when the margin of error is 3.0%, it really isn't that big. And, when you stop and consider that the electoral college favored Trump in the first place (FiveThirtyEight reported that it would be a toss-up at around 2.5% national lead in the popular vote), that explains Trump's win. That doesn't mean polls are useless, or worse than useless, it just means that there are errors that are naturally built into them that arise from time to time; unfortunately, this time (to put it in pokemon terms) Fissure hit.

I'm betting on eight years of Trump. The polls are worse than useless, and it's become cool to hate the law. Getting impeached will just make him more popular, though it might not get to the point where the people overthrow the government if they impeach Trump

I don't know. Trump is less popular now than Bush was after Katrina, and this is only the beginning of his term. He'll have to make some significant changes to really try to approve his image. But i don't think he cares all that much. Knowing the Democrats though they'll probably put a boring moderate like Tim Kaine up against him in 2020 instead of someone to excite the base.

During the Trump inauguration he brought out one of the lizardmen who secretly control him and had the creature wear a mock up human-suit. Luckily most of the witnesses who saw his inhuman appearance with hands that seem to be prosthesis for this snake creature merely assumed that this being from another world is merely a secret service agent wearing fake arms because he is holding a gun under his suit...

To be honest, I'm surprised the first citrus-American POTUS actually kept a campaign promise.

Just wait, before the midterms he'll rejoin it (after a few minor provisions have been tweaked and it's been renamed the "Trump-Pacific Partnership") and he'll say that it's the greatest trade deal, believe me, it's tremendous, it'll get all our jobs back, big league, and Mexico agreed to pay for the wall, a yuge wall, a beautiful wall, as part of it.

EDIT: We'll be winning with the Trump-Pacific Partnership. We'll be winning so much we'll get tired of winning with it, and we'll say, "Donald! We're tired of winning with the TPP! When you are going to pull us out of it?"

Buried in the heart of his bragging/whining speech to the CIA there was this (http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/21/trump-goes-to-cia-to-attack-media-lie-about-crowd-size-and-suggest-stealing-iraqs-oil/).

Quote

" Trump regurgitated parts of his stump speech about how the United States “should have kept the oil” after invading Iraq. “Maybe we’ll have another chance,”

That should worry people at least as much as him instructing his press secretary to tell blatant lies.

To be honest, I'm surprised the first citrus-American POTUS actually kept a campaign promise.

Just wait, before the midterms he'll rejoin it (after a few minor provisions have been tweaked and it's been renamed the "Trump-Pacific Partnership") and he'll say that it's the greatest trade deal, believe me, it's tremendous, it'll get all our jobs back, big league, and Mexico agreed to pay for the wall, a yuge wall, a beautiful wall, as part of it.

I doubt Trump will bring this back, while he flipped flopped on this issue, and every other that doesn't center around his giant hands/penis, his actions are taking us down the protectionist route... And China is laughing so hard at us right now. With America backing out, now they are the dominant economy to bring countries to the table and create free trade deals, deals which China--and not the United States--gets to write. Fact is, the TPP was drafted to circumvent China's currency manipulation and increase American influence in South Asian nations. That is why China is not a signatory.

And then with Canada and Mexico... I guess the only silver lining is that a trade war is better than an actual war. But then Tol posted, so fuck.

To be honest, I'm surprised the first citrus-American POTUS actually kept a campaign promise.

Just wait, before the midterms he'll rejoin it (after a few minor provisions have been tweaked and it's been renamed the "Trump-Pacific Partnership") and he'll say that it's the greatest trade deal, believe me, it's tremendous, it'll get all our jobs back, big league, and Mexico agreed to pay for the wall, a yuge wall, a beautiful wall, as part of it.

I doubt Trump will bring this back, while he flipped flopped on this issue, and every other that doesn't center around his giant hands/penis, his actions are taking us down the protectionist route... And China is laughing so hard at us right now. With America backing out, now they are the dominant economy to bring countries to the table and create free trade deals, deals which China--and not the United States--gets to write. Fact is, the TPP was drafted to circumvent China's currency manipulation and increase American influence in South Asian nations. That is why China is not a signatory.

And then with Canada and Mexico... I guess the only silver lining is that a trade war is better than an actual war. But then Tol posted, so fuck.

He's also a known serial liar. I'd put no more credence into his promises on trade than anything else.

And that may have been the original motivation for the TPP, but then they added stuff that allowed corporations to go before international tribunals of corporate lawyers to overturn, without appeal, local laws that cut into their profit margins.

I wouldn't write off the threat of real war so early. It's a great way to get a bounce in popularity, people love a good war until it inevitably turns sour. It also lets you justify all sorts of repressive crap. If he wants to "eradicate ISIS" at some point he's gonna have to ask for ground troops.

More than 200 people who were mass-arrested at the Washington, D.C. protests against the inauguration of Donald Trump have been hit with felony riot charges that are punishable by up to 10 years in prison and quarter-million-dollar fine. Those picked up in the sweep—including legal observers and journalists—had their phones, cameras and other personal belongings confiscated as evidence, a lawyer confirmed to AlterNet.

More than 200 people who were mass-arrested at the Washington, D.C. protests against the inauguration of Donald Trump have been hit with felony riot charges that are punishable by up to 10 years in prison and quarter-million-dollar fine. Those picked up in the sweep—including legal observers and journalists—had their phones, cameras and other personal belongings confiscated as evidence, a lawyer confirmed to AlterNet.

In fairness (not that I think it deserves much), some of the protesters did cause property damage. (I don't know if they were actual protesters or agents provocateurs, however.) Whether any of those were among the people arrested, I don't know.

God damn fucking dumbshits. Look, the UN is far from a perfect organization but it holds a a function in international politics that is completely essential to maintaining basic stability in the world. These tea party lunatics don't understand such basic stuff, it makes me weep.

As for Trump starting a war, I think he will not out of a plan to boost his poll numbers but just because of his fragile ego. He's so petty and easily baited that all ISIS needs to do is make a video on youtube saying he's bald to provoke him into invading ever country in the middle east, just like they want.

Apparently, this bill has been proposed at every Congress session for the past 20 years, but never even made it past the committee. I'm pretty sure leaving the UN was not part of the Republicans' platform, and neither did Trump campaign for it.

Not saying that it can't eventually happen if They the People drag their own asses into an impossible situation, but the timing of this proposal is basically irrelevant to how it might eventually come to happen.

So, basically, the Republican Party has metamorphosed into the Pigmask Army, and Trump is basically a seventy year old Porky Minch.

It fits; wanting to cause the apocalypse, no regard for anyone but themselves, corrupting people into giving them more power...

Dear Leader is a narcissistic yet unbelievably insecure, elderly manchild who loves naming things after himself. Accordingly, his seat of power is on top of a massive tower that bears his name. He wants the entire world to love him, admire him, practically worship him, and will seek to punish anyone who doesn't. He seized power by exploiting people's complacency, ignorance and apathy, but to him it was all just a game. He embodies the decay of modern Western society, of capitalism, of our concept of freedom ; even beyond that, he represents the timeless human vices that all those troubles stem from, the reasons there was never a time or place where "society", capitalism or freedom were ever truly "done right".

Hilariously, down under our own conservative government is futilely begging Trump to keep the TPP (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/transpacific-partnership-dead-before-trump-even-takes-office-20161113-gso9kn.html) while the opposition asks why they're even bothering. (http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/01/21/govt-must-look-tpp-alternatives-alp)

Hilariously, down under our own conservative government is futilely begging Trump to keep the TPP (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/transpacific-partnership-dead-before-trump-even-takes-office-20161113-gso9kn.html) while the opposition asks why they're even bothering. (http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/01/21/govt-must-look-tpp-alternatives-alp)

Australia, let's play a little game I like to call "have you met China?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qsPfwKZHUQ)

Apparently, this bill has been proposed at every Congress session for the past 20 years, but never even made it past the committee. I'm pretty sure leaving the UN was not part of the Republicans' platform, and neither did Trump campaign for it.

Not saying that it can't eventually happen if They the People drag their own asses into an impossible situation, but the timing of this proposal is basically irrelevant to how it might eventually come to happen.

So, basically, the Republican Party has metamorphosed into the Pigmask Army, and Trump is basically a seventy year old Porky Minch.

It fits; wanting to cause the apocalypse, no regard for anyone but themselves, corrupting people into giving them more power...

Dear Leader is a narcissistic yet unbelievably insecure, elderly manchild who loves naming things after himself. Accordingly, his seat of power is on top of a massive tower that bears his name. He wants the entire world to love him, admire him, practically worship him, and will seek to punish anyone who doesn't. He seized power by exploiting people's complacency, ignorance and apathy, but to him it was all just a game. He embodies the decay of modern Western society, of capitalism, of our concept of freedom ; even beyond that, he represents the timeless human vices that all those troubles stem from, the reasons there was never a time or place where "society", capitalism or freedom were ever truly "done right".

...they rode to true power by taking advantage of the beliefs and natures of small town people who wanted improvements and happiness, taking advantage of people who did not know better due to their own actions by promising them utopia and ascent. The Leader brought them into a cult, making them worship him and default to him on nearly everything, following him regardless what abuses the Leader's Army ended up doing. The Leader undertakes policies and decisions that would bring ruin to those who followed him and enabled him to achieve power, and yet even still they insist this is true Utopia, unable to fathom anything but that.

I hope Trump doesn't think that because he signed a paper it just doesn't make it so. I don't see congress even being republican going along with this. The republicans who don't like to spend money on infrastructure are not just going to net billions to build a worthless wall. I hope Trump throws a hissy fit. You can't cut taxes and then just build this wall. Not to mention all of the issues with people owning land on the border who didn't sell it last time this was tried. And when the population picks up on that it's coming out of our taxes i think the popularity of this wall will drop.

For every 455 people who gain health coverage in the US, one life is saved per year.

So when you strip health insurance from twenty million people--which is what repealing the Affordable Care Act will do--you add, on average, almost 44,000 deaths per year.

So for the sake of giving the finger to Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement (which, as I have said so many times, is what the Republicans had been proposing for decades) and giving a massive tax cut to the 400 richest families in the US, the Republican Party is willing to kill well over forty thousand people per year.

So for the sake of giving the finger to Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement (which, as I have said so many times, is what the Republicans had been proposing for decades) and giving a massive tax cut to the 400 richest families in the US, the Republican Party is willing to kill well over forty thousand people per year.

Hell, they've been more than prepared to kill foreign lives for politics. So have the blue dogs. Not just foreign lives, how many are unnecessarily killed because of "tough on crime" policing or the war on drugs?

Being prepared to shed others blood for a few political points isn't that unusual unfortunately.

Angus King (I-ME), who caucuses with the Democrats, voted in favour of confirming Rep. Pompeo. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who also caucuses with the Democrats, voted against confirming Rep. Pompeo. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) did not vote.

Angus King (I-ME), who caucuses with the Democrats, voted in favour of confirming Rep. Pompeo. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who also caucuses with the Democrats, voted against confirming Rep. Pompeo. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) did not vote.

Angus King (I-ME), who caucuses with the Democrats, voted in favour of confirming Rep. Pompeo. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who also caucuses with the Democrats, voted against confirming Rep. Pompeo. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) did not vote.

Angus King (I-ME), who caucuses with the Democrats, voted in favour of confirming Rep. Pompeo. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who also caucuses with the Democrats, voted against confirming Rep. Pompeo. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) did not vote.

"Opposition"? Surely you jest!

They're taking the "Loyal" part of "Loyal Opposition" too literally.

The new test of loyalty will apparently be celebrating Trump's Inauguration Day (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/01/23/national-day-of-patriotic-devotion-for-what/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+freethoughtblogs%2Fpharyngula+%28FTB%3A+Pharyngula%29) as a National Day of Patriotic Devotion (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/24/2017-01798/national-day-of-patriotic-devotion).

If there is a human being in the history of ever with a larger and more fragile ego, let me know.

The new test of loyalty will apparently be celebrating Trump's Inauguration Day (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/01/23/national-day-of-patriotic-devotion-for-what/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+freethoughtblogs%2Fpharyngula+%28FTB%3A+Pharyngula%29) as a National Day of Patriotic Devotion (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/24/2017-01798/national-day-of-patriotic-devotion).

If there is a human being in the history of ever with a larger and more fragile ego, let me know.

Obama practiced the same kind of self-aggrandizement with his "Day of Renewal and Reconciliation", so Trump had a precedent to back him up. The choice of name is still a tad worrying as an endorsement of exceptionalism, but coming from this team in particular, that's not exactly anything new or surprising.

EDIT: looks like Dear Leader is trying to rewrite his popular vote loss into a win. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/25/trump-promises-major-investigation-into-alleged-voter-fraud.html) Since this is far from his first shot at "alternative biographing" himself success out of abject failure and he now has the immense power of the state in his tiny, tiny hands, I fully accept the possibility that official reality will conform to his wishes.

Hey, it worked for Stalin. Its amazing how a little book editing and early 20th century Photoshop magic can turn someone that Lenin thought to be the greatest threat to the Soviet Union into one of Lenin's best buddies.

You know how Trump talked about spending as much as a trillion dollars on infrastructure? Probably one of the things he talked about most, alongside building the wall, getting out of TPP, and renegotiating NAFTA.

You know how Trump talked about spending as much as a trillion dollars on infrastructure? Probably one of the things he talked about most, alongside building the wall, getting out of TPP, and renegotiating NAFTA.

Well, the Democrats proposed doing just that.

And the GOP shot it down.

I hope they don't do that infrastructure plan. Large infrastructure rebuilding projects should be used in a Keynesian sense. That is, when there is a recession and high unemployment, where the infrastructure project is a means of spending to modernize the economy while allowing the government to spend its way out of said recession. An infrastructure project now, when unemployment is 4.7% pushes us dangerously close to full employment, meaning that inflation is on the horizon. Further, at a time like this, where wages are starting to recover, where unemployment is low, and where the recession is over, it's just a giant money giveaway to large industries that work in machinery and government contractors. While this is true even in times of recession, the creation of jobs and government stimulus make up for this in the long term. However, I don't believe Trump's motive for an infrastructure plan is to help the economy or create jobs, but to stimulate a sector of the economy that he likely owns substantial stock in. I have no evidence for this belief, but come on, it's Donald Trump.

You know how Trump talked about spending as much as a trillion dollars on infrastructure? Probably one of the things he talked about most, alongside building the wall, getting out of TPP, and renegotiating NAFTA.

Well, the Democrats proposed doing just that.

And the GOP shot it down.

I hope they don't do that infrastructure plan. Large infrastructure rebuilding projects should be used in a Keynesian sense. That is, when there is a recession and high unemployment, where the infrastructure project is a means of spending to modernize the economy while allowing the government to spend its way out of said recession. An infrastructure project now, when unemployment is 4.7% pushes us dangerously close to full employment, meaning that inflation is on the horizon. Further, at a time like this, where wages are starting to recover, where unemployment is low, and where the recession is over, it's just a giant money giveaway to large industries that work in machinery and government contractors. While this is true even in times of recession, the creation of jobs and government stimulus make up for this in the long term. However, I don't believe Trump's motive for an infrastructure plan is to help the economy or create jobs, but to stimulate a sector of the economy that he likely owns substantial stock in. I have no evidence for this belief, but come on, it's Donald Trump.

Well, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, as of 2013 (and since not much has been done since, I believe, it's only gotten worse), civic infrastructure in the US got a grade of D+ (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/) and would require an investment of $3.6 trillion by 2020 to fix. It's not a matter of spending to boost employment, or spending your way out of a recession, or what have you--it's a matter of fixing infrastructure that has to be fixed.

Looks like that prospect of a trade war with Mexico just got a whole lot more real (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/26/trump-calls-for-20-tax-on-mexican-imports-to-pay-for-border-wall). From the Guardian:

Quote

Enrique Peña Nieto cancelled a meeting with Donald Trump and the White House retaliated by suggesting a new 20% tax on imports from its southern neighbour to finance the construction of a border wall.

Looks like he has the authority within the letter of the law to impose tariffs without congressional approval too.

Someone was, for a short while, making tweets supposedly revealing what was happening inside the white house.

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/356836/large/WHL10.jpg?1485420630)(http://images.dailykos.com/images/356837/large/WHL11.jpg?1485420795)If these are true I don't think Trump will last 8 years...

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/356840/large/WHL15.jpg?1485420796)

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/356846/large/WHL18.jpg?1485421289)

The more I read about Trump the more it reminds me of Nero, Caligula and other insane emperors... And you've got lead poisoning going on in Flint as well so maybe this is just an attmpt at re-enacting the fall of the Roman empire?

I doubt he's the only politician who's a member of a conservative party who really thinks that, most of them are all about the Benjamins but know to get elected you need to spout conservative talking points about abortion being bad.

Ditto capital punishment being a deterrent, ditto climate change.

This is worrying though.

(http://i.imgur.com/ZsMUccK.jpg)

Is Trump going to mount an invasion of those parts of America that didn't vote for him?

I want to point out, so it's clear, that we have no way of knowing if those tweets are actually true. That said, I choose to believe that they are, in the lack of any evidence to the contrary.

Well if the White house brings actual solid proof that these Tweets are simply lies and slander then wouldn't that just be alt-facts?

EDIT: also, have we reached the point where we can agree that USA is going through a revolution or coup as several major agencies are refusing orders from the president? You have park rangers and NASA going rogue to publish scientific data (which, I admit, is among the stranger ways to rebel but let's just go with it) and even though no shots have been fired yet Trump is clearly losing control of the country and he has only just been the president for a week...

@askold: It ain't just Flint. Lead is a gigantic problem in the US...and not from water. The greatest threat of contamination actually comes from old paint that we could have removed a long fucking time ago, if certain people upstairs gave a shit. Its kind of worryingly hilarious that there's theories floating about that lead consumption could've been a leading cause of the fall of the Roman Empire.

Jobs have been leaving the country since the 1940s, way before NAFTA or TPP were even thought up. It's not going to change much, and TPP was pretty much dead in the water in congress anyways. Corporations have their own self interests in mind and probably don't really care much what Trump thinks. They may "create" some jobs to stay here to appease him, but most manufacturing is becoming automated or shipped over seas at a lesser coast anyways. The economy is becoming very much global and a lot of countries are trying to fight against it.

b) out of a deliberate political strategy to test which republicans are loyal enough to him to humiliate themselves in public for him so he can secure his control of the party and depose guys like Paul Ryan?

Yes, "the gays" are in alliance with "the Muslims/ISIS" who want to kill them all because they both hate Trump and 'Murica more than each other. Also the Black lives matter movement is a secret gay-Muslim plot to end the world by making Jesus rise again. Or something.

b) out of a deliberate political strategy to test which republicans are loyal enough to him to humiliate themselves in public for him so he can secure his control of the party and depose guys like Paul Ryan?

b) out of a deliberate political strategy to test which republicans are loyal enough to him to humiliate themselves in public for him so he can secure his control of the party and depose guys like Paul Ryan?

It's a major trait of someone with narcisistic personality disorder. Lying to make himself seem greater than he actually is. Making big empty promises. Putting down people who challenge him. It's why he bullies the media. Because the media tells it like it is and it shatters his little ego. Narcisist attack those who don't treat them as the number one person in the room, world, universe.

So only a week or so in and the next four years is shaping up to be popcorn-worthy.

Entertainment-wise my horror scenario was this dude turning into a boring sensible politician who'd just spent the campaign spouting fun-but-implausible things to energise the voter base only to drop them after inauguration day.

But early indicators are looking like he's actually going to DO some of them. This is going to be HILARIOUS.

But then, I can think of four nuclear powers with which he could well start a war: Russia, China (trade war initially, but I wouldn't put it past him to be incompetent enough to turn it into a hot war), North Korea, and Pakistan.

Plus he's said Saudi Arabia should have nukes, which would make relations with those madmen ("the ISIS that made it") extremely delicate for any future President who might feel like lambasting them over their human rights abuses.*

And if he starts a nuclear war with North Korea and those crazies actually manage to make a missile capable of reaching California... well, I live on the west coast of North America, too, and I'd be scared out of my skin at the likely lack of accuracy of any North Korean missile.

EDIT: *Never mind what Israel might do if Saudi Arabia looked like they might be getting nukes.

Entertainment-wise my horror scenario was this dude turning into a boring sensible politician who'd just spent the campaign spouting fun-but-implausible things to energise the voter base only to drop them after inauguration day.

But early indicators are looking like he's actually going to DO some of them. This is going to be HILARIOUS.

Yes, the hilarity if you have an Arab name of never being able to go on holiday or visit relatives. I'm sure they see the joke.

These people risked their lives (and their lives are still at risk because of their past associations) for the US and its soldiers. Now Trump has banned (or is about to ban) them from entering the country.

One of my relatives thinks Trump's likely to stage a military coup, of the US, successfully. She repeatedly compares the US to Rome while doing so, of course.

Totally a trustworthy source and not the demented shrieking of someone who doesn't understand how governments work.

For someone who claims to be British, you really don't comprehend the English written word very well do you? Pyro is hardly citing his/her relative as a reliable source. The statement is simply the repetition of conjecture. By definition not said to be a reliable source.

For fuck's sake, at least make an attempt at reading. I realise it's hard to focus given your vigorous self abuse but maybe take a breather before typing.

I mean it's true that not all the victims of the Holocaust were Jewish but they were the one group of people that the Nazis specifically made their target and whom they had been terrorizing for years already. I think I can even say that they were the main target and the others were the "other untermensch."

One of my relatives thinks Trump's likely to stage a military coup, of the US, successfully. She repeatedly compares the US to Rome while doing so, of course.

Totally a trustworthy source and not the demented shrieking of someone who doesn't understand how governments work.

For someone who claims to be British, you really don't comprehend the English written word very well do you? Pyro is hardly citing his/her relative as a reliable source. The statement is simply the repetition of conjecture. By definition not said to be a reliable source.

For fuck's sake, at least make an attempt at reading. I realise it's hard to focus given your vigorous self abuse but maybe take a breather before typing.

Why? He just wants to bloviate. Bloviating only requires alternative facts, reading real ones is for libtards!

4Channers, Goobergaters and neo-Nazis can't make a coherent team and they are either fighting over which one of them is the coolest or whether or not they should be closeted Nazis or in full-Nazi mode.

One guy was told to stop with his Nazi salutes and keep a lid on his anti-semitism, the result:

Quote

Cernovich is a huge cuck. Mike Cernovich is a massive cuck.

I am alt-right. I have always been alt-right. I have never said I'm not alt-right, unlike Mike and Paul Joseph Watson and Milo and these other cucks.

Nazi Politics has never been unified, All For Hitler, or even particularly kind to one another.

For example, here's some drama that went on;

Reinhard Heydrich - infamous sociopath and the guy other Nazis went to for organizing stuff from genocide to the fucking Olympics - played three different men against one another, Himmler, Goering and Bormann. All thought Heydrich was their friend. Eichmann believed he and Heydrich were similar in spirit, but Reinhard reportedly saw Eichmann as a leech who followed whatever others were doing.

Goering was infamous for his drugs, his parties, and his wasteful ways and others disliked the way he only peaked in to goings on to voice his disdain.

Himmler was an avid control freak, a manipulator who played at being a harmless bureaucrat to more adequately control others. He could not stand being removed from a position of control. For him, Reinhard was a friend due to their close work, and yet he was never anything to Reinhard but a convenient cover for when he, er, did things that even other Nazis disliked.

And all these men had eyes on being Fuhrer one day and tirelessly worked against one another - all of them convinced some were their friends and others their foes, sometimes changing classifications by the day or week.

So you see, this is nothing new. The Alt-Reich for all their tawdry displays is falling into exactly the same kind of infighting and factionation that dominated the Third Reich and in part contributed to its downfall. In an empire governed by hatred, eventually those who rule will direct their hate at one another.

Never will they be content - they'll divide up even their preferred white race into subraces and genuses like the idiots they are, because hate is all they have. There is no cohesion, no remarkable unity, just utter vicious idiocy.

4Channers, Goobergaters and neo-Nazis can't make a coherent team and they are either fighting over which one of them is the coolest or whether or not they should be closeted Nazis or in full-Nazi mode.

I don't actually miss Ultimate Prattle On/Alcoholic Flagon but It'd be entertaining to see what kind of rhetorical bullshit he'd spout to justify being totes progressive while concern trolling crocodile tears about how the "real progressives" in the alt-right are being oppressed by mean radflakes.

So... is there anyone apart from the customs agents and the majority of the senate on Trumps side anymore? Because he lost the LAPD now: http://usuncut.com/news/lapd-police-chief-just-openly-rebelled-trumps-immigration-orders/

Rex Tillerson, former CEO of Exxon-Mobil, which had a multi-billion contract with Russia killed by Obama administration sanctions over the invasion of Crimea, has been confirmed as Secretary of State. His qualifications for this position can be found behind the spoiler tag.

Australia's PM Malcolm Turnbull and Trump are having a spat over who hates Muslim refugees more.

Turnbull had made an agreement with Obam to take some asylum seekers trapped in rapey hellhole Manus Island. Trump has reacted pretty much as you'd expect him to (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/02/australia-struggling-to-save-refugee-agreement-after-trumps-fury-at-dumb-deal) calling it a "dumb deal" and allegedly hanging up on Turnbull.

Turbull is in a bit of a bind here, he thought he'd scored a political coup because Aussie conservatives hate refugees as much as American ones and he could get America to take them. But then the American ones voted for Trump...

Trump presidency will not last four years. I don't think it will last even a year. The way this is going the first shots will be fired sooner or later and I'm not sure how many sides the second US civil war will have but it is coming and it will be soon.

(Granted that I would not be surprised if Trump's side will win the war but I'm sure they'll think of a new title for him when he rules the YUGE STATES OF MURICA.)

EDIT: and that Australia thingy. The most offensive part of this, in my mind, is how Trump is really using newspeak. "Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!"

Note, "illegal immigrants." He is talking about refugees and lumping them together with the people who cross the border illegally. This is despicable.

The White house eased the sanctions to US corporations dealing with Russia. Or as the White house put it they "did NOT ease the sanctions to US corporations dealing with Russia." Because of course they have alternative facts.

From now on (unless they change things again) technology companies can export stuff to Russia as long as the FSB promises that those items will not be used in the Crimean war.

A year ago President Bannon said straight out that war with China and War in the Middle East is inevitable in the future. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/steve-bannon-donald-trump-war-south-china-sea-no-doubt)

Quote

“We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years,” he said in March 2016. “There’s no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it’s an ancient territorial sea.”

Now he's in power while his orange mannequin distracts everybody by pooping all over the world stage. It's a matter of time, fascism needs war or everybody including those in positions of power realizes it's not working. War will come.

A year ago President Bannon said straight out that war with China and War in the Middle East is inevitable in the future. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/steve-bannon-donald-trump-war-south-china-sea-no-doubt)

Quote

“We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years,” he said in March 2016. “There’s no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it’s an ancient territorial sea.”

Now he's in power while his orange mannequin distracts everybody by pooping all over the world stage. It's a matter of time, fascism needs war or everybody including those in positions of power realizes it's not working. War will come.

You do realize the US has been at war for the last 140 years, right? The 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie ended Red Cloud's War, and the US unilaterally abrogated that treaty no later than 1877.

The state visit with Teresa May seemed to go well enough. I'm glad to see Sir Winston's bust back on display after Obama summarily removed it from sight (incidentally, he also has a place of honor on the main floor of the Pentagon). I'm hopeful for a US/UK trade deal.

The EO on refugees wasn't unconstitutional or illegal (despite some of the headlines) but the internal comms weren't there and that caused the implementation to be bungled. Unnecessary error, but fixable, and on the whole not really that big a deal.

He made a killer SCOUTS nomination. That means a lot.

Iran is the one starting shit with the Iran situation, not Trump. Remember, he made his bones as a counter-puncher.

On the other side of the ledger, what's with the dust-up with Australia? Not cool.

Also, what's with flirting with the Obama position on Israel? Also not cool.

I missed the speeches, so I won't opine on those.

So on the whole, the week was a mixed bag, but much more to the positive. I'm hoping that Trump and the Australian PM can kiss and make up, but I'll take this over whatever would have come out of President Hillary's office this week, that's for sure.

(And by that standard, he has a lot of latitude and a really low bar).

Thing is, I'm actually disappointed by that person in particular. Earlier in the process he'd indicated that he was opposed to both Clinton and Trump and would probably vote for Johnson... and then voted for Trump. (He's in Maryland, so it's not like that impacted the results of the election, but still.)

A year ago President Bannon said straight out that war with China and War in the Middle East is inevitable in the future. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/steve-bannon-donald-trump-war-south-china-sea-no-doubt)

Quote

“We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years,” he said in March 2016. “There’s no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it’s an ancient territorial sea.”

Now he's in power while his orange mannequin distracts everybody by pooping all over the world stage. It's a matter of time, fascism needs war or everybody including those in positions of power realizes it's not working. War will come.

Bit of a problem there. Once the GOP gets what they want out of Trump, he's impeached and WHOOPS there goes President Bannon.

Ironbite-he needs to start that war like...tomorrow if he wants to stay in power and Trump doesn't actually have the military right now.

So shortly before the end of Obama's presidency, the Department of the Interior proposed a rule that would have prevented mining companies from dumping byproducts into streams. Now the Senate, at least, has voted to overrule it... with Democrats Joe Donnelly (IN), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Joe Manchin (WV), and Claire McCaskill (MO) voting for it, and Republican Susan Collins (ME) voting against it. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) did not vote.

“Donald Trump wants to remove us from undue federal scrutiny by removing ‘white supremacists’ from the definition of ‘extremism,’” the founder and editor of the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer (which takes its name from a Nazi propaganda publication) wrote in a post on the site. “Yes, this is real life. Our memes are all real life. Donald Trump is setting us free.”

The Democratic Party has been focused on presidential years, not midterm years, of late. (Observe that they made mild gains in Congress in 2012 and 2016, and took huge hits in 2010 and 2014.) So already the Republicans have this edge on them in 2018 unless they can seriously reverse course.

Thanks to that disastrous showing in 2010, the House is gerrymandered all to hell against the Democrats. I can't really see them making up 30 seats they'd need for a majority there.

Nearly half of their Senate caucus is up for re-election in 2018, who came in on the back of Obama's 2012 win and the one midterm election of late where the Dems did well, in 2006 (because Dean actually had a fifty-state strategy, unlike Wasserman Schultz who was just a good fundraiser and had to raise tons of money to pay off the campaign debt Obama dumped on the DNC). When the 2008 group, who also rode Obama's coattails, came up in 2014, the Dems got hammered. 10 of the Democratic Senators up for re-election are from states Trump won, and not only that, but in the meantime the Voting Rights Act has been emasculated and Republicans, who control many of those states, have enacted tough voter suppression laws. So I can't see them picking up another three Senate seats--in fact, I think it's more likely they'd retake the House than the Senate, and I think the Republicans will actually extend their Senate majority.

So the VRA won't get updated, the voter suppression laws won't get struck down, the House maps will largely remain in effect for 2020, and it'll take something really, really special for the Dems to make big gains there. They could well beat Trumpelthinskin, or the religious fundamentalist who would replace him if he were impeached, but they've dug themselves a deep, deep hole and it will take a big change in the party to get themselves out of it any time soon.

Basically, when the Democrats aren't specifically helping the Republicans across the party lines they are merely incompetent and the main two reasons to vote for them are a) at least they aren't Republicans and b) the de-facto two-party system in USA means that voting a third party is just useless.

As far as I know, so long as the President isn't profiting off of foreign interests, they are allowed to own businesses. It is, however, my understanding that tradition has had every previous President cut ties with any business interests they have, partly to prevent a violation of the Title of Nobility Clause, partly so they can focus on the job and partly to prevent any conflict of interest that would directly impact their ability to perform the job of the President fairly to the people.

Now, seeing as Trump is so lazy that he reportedly didn't even read the order to put Bannon on the NSC, he obviously doesn't care about his ability to do his job. Because his motivations in anything he does are his ego and his wallet, he obviously doesn't care about any conflicts of interest if they benefit him, regardless of how they hurt everyone else. And because he has numerous business interests around the world, he is probably in violation of the Title of Nobility Clause and will most definitely be in violation of it when foreign diplomats inevitably show preference to his hotels to try to gain his favor.

Man the Trump tranision was such a rousing success but I think it might've been a bit rushed. I mean besides not having time to give the Orange Piss Pot a crash course in basic civics, Obama forgot to show Trump where the light switch is and where the exit doors are. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/trump-white-house-aides-strategy.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0)

Quote

Aides confer in the dark because they cannot figure out how to operate the light switches in the cabinet room. Visitors conclude their meetings and then wander around, testing doorknobs until finding one that leads to an exit. In a darkened, mostly empty West Wing, Mr. Trump’s provocative chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, finishes another 16-hour day planning new lines of attack.

I could maybe see Nevada going, but I can't see any of the other seats switching, and as I've noted previously, I think the Republican majority in the Senate will grow.

I think the Dems have a chance if they go populist left (which includes booting out some sitting Democratic Senators in primaries), rather than wishy-washy corporatist "Third Way" centrism (which actually is pretty right-wing compared to the public), but I'm not holding my breath on that.

It'll probably happen sooner rather then later but I want McCain gone now.

Ironbite-man has no spine despite being a "maverick".

He was a "maverick" two decades ago. Then he saw all the money to go Bush in 2000, which was a major factor in his Presidential primary loss, and his voting record got a lot more conservative after that.

I guess you don't have to worry about the new head of Department of Education if the GOP manages to get rid of the department completely: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/318310-gop-lawmaker-proposes-abolishing-department-of-education

OK I watch these guys way more than I should but I find them hilarious. I should probably find the clip directly from the O'Reilly Trump interview but can't be arsed. Trump thinks Barack Obama really likes him:

New York City is literally spending more on the Trumps than they are on the homeless.

EDIT: In fairness, the amount of money being spent by NYC on securing Trump Tower may have dropped for now with Trump spending time in the White House (and at Mar-a-Lago) as opposed to when he was President-Elect, but it's still ridiculous that it was true at any time.

Jeff Sessions, a racist so heinous that a Republican-led Senate rejected him for a federal judgeship when President Reagan nominated him for one in 1986, has been confirmed as Attorney General by a vote of 52-47.

Sen. Sessions voted "Present." Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) was the only defection, voting in favour of Sessions' nomination. Both independent Senators voted against the nomination.

That is now the third one of these I have seen. The other two were "America First - Netherlands Second" and "America First - Bavaria Second" - The guy doing the voice in each one is so good I suspect he's the same guy in all 3.

In his first fight with the court system, the Orange Piss Pot has taken a massive body blow and has been left reeling. (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/09/appeals-court-to-issue-decision-on-trump-travel-ban-later-today.html) 9th Circuit upheld the suspension order.

Ironbite-lets see if he lets it die or has Sessions take to the SCOTUS.

In his first fight with the court system, the Orange Piss Pot has taken a massive body blow and has been left reeling. (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/09/appeals-court-to-issue-decision-on-trump-travel-ban-later-today.html) 9th Circuit upheld the suspension order.

Ironbite-lets see if he lets it die or has Sessions take to the SCOTUS.

The Ninth Circuit is a bunch of liberal losers. They don't know how to win and will not keep us safe. Sad!

SCOTUS will keep us safe when Sessions makes a tremendous argument before them. SCOTUS will make a tremendous ruling. We'll make America safe again!

In his first fight with the court system, the Orange Piss Pot has taken a massive body blow and has been left reeling. (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/09/appeals-court-to-issue-decision-on-trump-travel-ban-later-today.html) 9th Circuit upheld the suspension order.

Ironbite-lets see if he lets it die or has Sessions take to the SCOTUS.

The Ninth Circuit is a bunch of liberal losers. They don't know how to win and will not keep us safe. Sad!

SCOTUS will keep us safe when Sessions makes a tremendous argument before them. SCOTUS will make a tremendous ruling. We'll make America safe again!

The fact that people refer to Judges of the Supreme Court 'voting' their party line is a sad indictment on the US judiciary. However given the decision of the first instance judge (and his background) you would hope that politics (rather than the law) doesn't intrude to deeply in the decision of the Supreme Court.

So what are the odds of the supreme court going against this ban? I think Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer will vote against it. But will Kennedy swing to their side, or vote his party line?

Keep in mind that it'll be a while before any case on this matter reaches the Supreme Court. These rulings have been on whether the plaintiffs are likely to succeed once the case is fully heard, not a ruling on the matter itself. The judges have found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed, and so have stayed the ban.

If the Ninth Circuit rules on the merits and strikes down the ban, and the government appeals to the Supreme Court, then, should Gorsuch not have been confirmed, and assuming no other changes to the composition of the Court, a 4-4 Court would leave the Ninth Circuit's decision in effect. It's even possible, although unlikely, that the Court could deny certiorari.

53% of respondents disapprove of President Trump's job performance and 52% have an unfavourable opinion of him. Among Trump voters, however, 91% approve of his performance and 93% have a favourable opinion of him.

49% of respondents oppose his travel ban, but 93% of Trump voters support it.

48% of respondents think the intent of the travel ban was to prevent Muslims from entering the US, but 73% of Trump voters do not think that was the intent of it. Meanwhile, 65% of respondents oppose banning Muslims from entering the US, but among Trump voters opinion is almost evenly split, with 43% opposing it and 41% supporting it.

53% of respondents trust judges more than Trump (38%) to make the right decisions for the US, and 64% do not think Trump should be able to overturn judicial decisions with which he disagrees. However, 78% of Trump voters trust Trump more (14% trust judges more), and 51% think he should be able to overturn judicial decisions with which he disagrees.

45% of respondents have an unfavourable opinion of Steve Bannon (22% have a favourable opinion and 33% are not sure). However, among Trump voters, only 9% have an unfavourable opinion of him, while 46% have a favourable opinion and 46% are not sure (yes, yes, rounding).

47% of respondents have an unfavourable opinion of Kellyanne Conway, but 73% of Trump voters have a favourable opinion of her. Similarly 41% of respondents have an unfavourable opinion of Sean Spicer, but 65% of Trump voters have a favourable opinion of him. Also, 49% of respondents have an unfavourable opinion of Betsy DeVos, but 53% of Trump voters have a favourable opinion of her.

47% of respondents support the Affordable Care Act, but 76% of Trump voters oppose it.

Given the choice between keeping the working parts of the ACA and fixing the broken parts, or scrapping the ACA entirely and starting over, 65% of respondents support the former option, but 62% of Trump voters support the latter option.

58% of respondents think Trump should release his tax returns, and 62% think he should fully divest himself from his business interests. However, among Trump voters, 63% think he should not release his tax returns, and 50% think he should not fully divest himself from his business interests.

Given the choice between President Trump and President Pence, 38% of respondents preferred the former, 30% preferred the latter, and 32% weren't sure.

52% of respondents think the New York Times is more credible than Donald Trump, but 82% of Trump voters think Trump is more credible than the Times.

50% of respondents have a favourable opinion of Saturday Night Live, but 77% of Trump voters have an unfavourable opinion of it. Also, 48% of respondents find SNL more credible than Trump, but 88% of Trump voters think Trump is more credible than SNL.

56% of respondents oppose building a wall with Mexico if Americans have to pay up front, but 75% of Trump voters support it under those circumstances.

55% of respondents do not think millions of people voted illegally in the 2016 election, but 55% of Trump supporters do think that millions of people voted illegally in the 2016 election.

52% of respondents would rather have Barack Obama as President, to 44% who prefer Donald Trump. When instead comparing Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump, these numbers become 49% and 45%.

7% of respondents support invading Mexico, compared to 83% who do not support it. However, 14% of Trump voters support such a policy, compared to 71% who do not.

Support for impeaching Trump is divided, with 46% supporting doing so and 46% opposing the same. Perhaps predictably, only 5% of Trump voters support this, compared to 93% who do not, and among Clinton voters, 83% support impeachment compared to 6% who do not.

66% of respondents think the US is a safe country. Even a majority of Trump voters, 55%, think so.

Black History Month has a 64% favourability rating among respondents, but only a 45% favourability rating among Trump voters. Only 28% of respondents think there should be a White History Month, but 46% of Trump voters think there should be one.

68% of respondents disapprove of the job Congress is doing, 52% of respondents disapprove of the job Sen. McConnell is doing as Senate Majority Leader, and 47% of respondents disapprove of the job Speaker Ryan is doing as Speaker of the House.

If there were an election for Congress on the day the respondent was polled, 49% of respondents said they would vote for a Democratic candidate, compared to 41% who favoured a Republican candidate.

80% of respondents did so via phone; 20% did so over the internet. Questions about their methodology can be directed to the e-mail address at the top of the first page of the release.

The fact that everyone in the GOP isn't insisting on impeaching Trump ASAP is a clear sign that they care less about USA than they care about their position.

Its how it is. The GOP are only interested in Trump for as long as they can get their agenda across. Nothing of their agenda actually has anything to do with the voters because they don't give two fucks about them. But the longer this goes on, the more likely mid-terms will be a slaughterhouse.

Steven Mnuchin, who worked at Goldman Sachs, a bank Trump railed against during the campaign, and headed up a bank that did massive robosigning, has been confirmed as Treasury Secretary by a 53-47 vote. The vote was party-line other than Joe Manchin (D-WV), who voted to confirm Mr. Mnuchin to his position.

It'd be kind of funny if she suddenly declared she was turning from Heel to Face and kneed Trump in the groin.

She got a lot of support from the Connecticut senators, both of whom she ran against in 2010 and 2012. They vouched for her that, being up close and personal with her during her Senate campaigns, she was qualified for the position.

Doesn't change that she only got control of the WWE so Vinnie could hide his assets after Uncle Sam kicked him in the sack for that whole "feeding wrestlers steroids" thing in the 90's. Though, this is the first presidential administration to have a member receive a Stone Cold Stunner, and the first to have received two Stone Cold Stunners.

Mick Mulvaney has been confirmed 51-49 as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. The vote was along party lines (both independent Senators voted against), except for the dissension of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

Also today, the Senate invoked cloture on the nomination of Scott Pruitt, a climate-change denier who as Attorney-General of Oklahoma sued the EPA and has taken lots of money from oil companies, to be the Administrator of the EPA.

Considering the fact that the only way we know President Trump even exists is from the newsmedia, "everything the newsmedia says is a lie" seems self-defeating for Trump's supporters...

Edit: It also gives about-to-retire news anchors the perfect chance to troll-em. Just say "And for my last news cast, I have an announcement to make. I am lying, right now (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox)."

So in Trumps continued war with the media the orange fuck tard now put a survey on media accountability on gop.com https://action.donaldjtrump.com/mainstream-media-accountability-survey/I can't wait until those "real" news sites like Info wars and Brietbart to quote the results of this survey.

Won't you get an early election when the impeachings get going? I know that Pence will replace Trump but what happens if/when he is impeached as well? Will they just go down the line picking successors and not have elections until 2020?

Won't you get an early election when the impeachings get going? I know that Pence will replace Trump but what happens if/when he is impeached as well? Will they just go down the line picking successors and not have elections until 2020?

I would imagine when Pence becomes president, he'd appoint his own vice president who'd then be next in line for the throne. So yeah, no elections until 2020 regardless of impeachments.

Won't you get an early election when the impeachings get going? I know that Pence will replace Trump but what happens if/when he is impeached as well? Will they just go down the line picking successors and not have elections until 2020?

I would imagine when Pence becomes president, he'd appoint his own vice president who'd then be next in line for the throne. So yeah, no elections until 2020 regardless of impeachments.

Yeah, we have a chain of replacement for presidents and Vice Presidents. No re-elections, just new president picks his new VP

I doubt any impeachment is going to happen. Not with a fully Republican congress.

That Republican Congress would probably prefer Pence to Trump. They're just waiting for a) Trump to give them everything they've been wanting to do for decades and b) Trump to fuck up hard enough that even most of his hardcore supporters admit that he has to go. (Because if they don't wait on the second one, those supporters will abandon them.)

That Republican Congress would probably prefer Pence to Trump. They're just waiting for a) Trump to give them everything they've been wanting to do for decades and b) Trump to fuck up hard enough that even most of his hardcore supporters admit that he has to go. (Because if they don't wait on the second one, those supporters will abandon them.)

(a) is impossible, because the GOP goals are self-contradictory.

(b) is irrelevant, because Trump's hardcore supporters have no problem with lying and don't trust anyone else, so any fuck-ups that the media reports can simply be denied, and successes can be pulled from The Onion.

No breaks on the Trump train! If the GOP turns on him the Trump-fanboys will turn on them. They will either have to watch USA burn or risk losing voters and political power. (We shall see which they care more about.)

No breaks on the Trump train! If the GOP turns on him the Trump-fanboys will turn on them. They will either have to watch USA burn or risk losing voters and political power. (We shall see which they care more about.)

My guess is they'll wait until the ACA repeal. That will hit Trump's base hard, if they spin it right they can blame it on him in a way that's convincing to grassroots Republicans who, lets face facts, are probably just dumb enough to buy it.

Then it's pres Pence and the only opposition they'll get is from the hardcore Trumpites, IE the Nazis and they're easily dismissed.

The scary thing is that the fact this is bullshit will never reach his supporters. Effectively the President has the mindset of a typical fox news viewer. That's fucking scary. But also explains so much.

Mr. Trump goes to London, and preceding him are protests, a debate over petitions on the matter in the House of Commons, a motion by a Conservative MP to sack to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and warnings that his visit could require having thousands of police officers on the streets.

EDIT:

Trump is far from the first controversial head of state to be received by the Queen.

Haile Salassie I of EthiopiaPresident Francisco Craveiro Lopes of Portugal, the second President during Salazar's rule as Prime MinisterShah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran, after Mossaddegh was kicked out by the CIA at MI6's behestVarious Kings of Saudi ArabiaPresident Nicolae Ceaucescu of RomaniaPresident Suharto of IndonesiaPresident Hosni Mubarak of EgyptPresident Robert Mugabe of ZimbabweVarious Presidents of ChinaPresident Vladimir Putin of RussiaPresident Park Geun-hye of South KoreaPresident Michael Higgins of Ireland

Is this just a coincidence or did mister "the president's powers will not be questioned" make a white power sign with his hands?

I mean on one hand having your hands like that could really be a coincedence, on the other hand... There was the "Lugenpresse" incident and the "hail trump" speech from Spencer and all those nazi salutes as well...

At what point are there too many white-power or Nazi symbols and terms for simple coincidence to be an acceptable answer?

On the other hand, the very same article goes on to say that linking your thumb and forefinger in a circle is racist because some internet frog does it. That quickly lost me a lot of trust in their knowledge about symbolism and the proper use of hand gestures, quite honestly.

Snopes says it's false. I'm skeptical of the whole story. Could he be doing it? Maybe, is he adjusting his suit and the camera caught it at that awkward time? Probably more likely. I don't really like the man but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt when it's due.

“If you look at these Cabinet nominees, they were selected for a reason, and that is deconstruction,” Bannon said. He posited that Trump’s announcement withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership was “one of the most pivotal moments in modern American history.”

Emphasis mine. If you think it was just a coincidence that the new head of EPA wants to disband the organization or that Devos is harming the public education in USA then you are mistaken. Bannon is doing what he said he would, dismantling the US government from within.

In an even bit of scarier news of our authoritarian take over. Spicer forbade CNN, The NY Times, Politico and Buzzfeed from entering the press briefing today.http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/24/media/cnn-blocked-white-house-gaggle/index.html

This is like massively unconstitutional right? Is someone going to call them out on this?

They have no actual state run media to counter what those publications are about to unleash. The media is a really powerful tool but the Trump Admin has no real friends in it. Infowars and Briebart don't count because that reaches such a small base. By doing this, and doing this so early, you tip your hand and get smacked down by more respectable media sources and have no counter.

Ironbite-this worked in 1930s Germany but won't work here in 2017 USA.

Yeah but it seems like they may be using certain news networks like Fox, or Brietbart to become state run media sites? By blocking everyone but those "news" organizations from press conferences, aren't they turning them into the state run media? Though they're technically not run by the state, they're more state approved.

I hope the rest of the media does their work and fights the narratives the administration is trying to push through instead of begging for crumbs from the outlets who are given the privilege to listen to the lies.

At least some reporters did the right thing and boycotted the farce. Every self-respecting outlet needs to have their reporters do the same.

If they don't care - and I think you are right that they probably don't - then the boycott would serve to discredit their propaganda. The target would not be the administration but the message and the outlets spreading it.

Meanwhile, with all these angry people confronting Republicans at town hall meetings...

Louie Gohmert invoked Gabrielle Giffords' shooting to justify why he's not holding town hall meetings in his district... only for Giffords to hear about this...

Quote

Town halls and countless constituent meetings were a hallmark of my tenure in Congress. It's how I was able to serve the people of southern Arizona. I believe that listening to my constituents was the most basic and core tenet of the job I was hired to do. I was shot on a Saturday morning. By Monday morning my offices were open to the public. Ron Barber, at my side that Saturday, who was shot multiple times, then elected to Congress in my stead, held town halls. It's what the people deserve in a representative.

Is it even legal for Spicer to go through someone's phone? Because in Finland it would be something that requires a warrant from a judge I think...

I think there's a difference between whether it's a government phone or a personal phone, because the latter would definitely be off-limits without a warrant but the former could well be open to his inspection.

Is it even legal for Spicer to go through someone's phone? Because in Finland it would be something that requires a warrant from a judge I think...

I think there's a difference between whether it's a government phone or a personal phone, because the latter would definitely be off-limits without a warrant but the former could well be open to his inspection.

You wouldnt need a warrant if they consent. Sounds like a looming industrial relations problem.

I had some computer problems of late, which is why I wasn't doing any naming-and-shaming of Democratic Senators (I'm considering Sens. Sanders and King as Democratic since they caucus with the Democrats) voting for horrific Trump Cabinet nominations. But let's do some now...

I can't remember if I covered the vote on Scott Pruitt himself, former AG of Oklahoma who sued the EPA 14 times and wrote letters to them that were literally written for him by energy companies, but Sens. Heitkamp (D-ND) and Manchin (D-WV) voted for him. Sen. Collins (R-ME) voted against him. Sens. Donnelly (D-IN) and McCain (R-AZ) did not vote.

Historically speaking, presidents don't tend to hold onto power in congress for long.

But 2018 is an extremely atypical year.

The House is, of course, gerrymandered all to hell. It would take a ton of voter anger at Republicans to flip that body to the Democrats.

As for the Senate, the Democrats have made gains in three straight Class 1 elections: 2000, when Gore won the popular vote, 2006, when Dean's fifty-state strategy paid off with House and Senate majorities, and 2012, when Obama was reelected. They're defending more than twice as many seats as the Republicans, ten of which are in states Trump carried. It's difficult for me to see how they hold onto all of them, especially seats like Heitkamp's in North Dakota or Manchin's in West Virginia.

Plus the DNC just pissed off a good chunk of progressives by electing Tom Perez as DNC chair--the one candidate for that position who had no endorsements from Sanders supporters. Every other candidate had endorsements from both Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters, while Perez had only been endorsed by people on the Clinton side. How this anger manifests itself--maybe through primary challenges to people like Heitkamp and Manchin, or through a boycott at the November polls--remains to be seen.

So now the idiot is claiming Obama wiretapped Trump tower during the campaign. Most likely to deflect from this growing Russia issue. He needs to stop campaigning and try to run the country.

The US is in perpetual campaign mode--one of the downsides of fixed election dates. Plus the Republicans have a real chance of picking up a Senate supermajority in 2018.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in America.

1. Fixed elections do not mean perpetual campaigning. First, few politicians talk election unless it is within a year or two (Potus and Senate) of reelection. Second, it shows a profound degree of spurious reasoning alongside a preference for parliamentary democracy to even suggest that.

2. The GOP will probably keep their majority in the Senate, but no way do they win a supermajority in 2018, or even 2020 for that matter. 2018 favors the GOP, but not to that degree.

I see the GOP losing a lot of seats in the house in 2018 not enough to give it to the democrats and probably maintaining or gaining a seat in the Senate. 2020 is probably when the dems might overtake something.

And now trump with no evidence, and just on hear say is asking Congress to investigate this imaginary wire tapping of trump tower that he some how heard of or made up himself. This just seems like him saying nuh uh you are to the whole Russian investigation.

And now trump with no evidence, and just on hear say is asking Congress to investigate this imaginary wire tapping of trump tower that he some how heard of or made up himself. This just seems like him saying nuh uh you are to the whole Russian investigation.

I see the GOP losing a lot of seats in the house in 2018 not enough to give it to the democrats and probably maintaining or gaining a seat in the Senate. 2020 is probably when the dems might overtake something.

Yeah, but for the dems to take the House in 2018, 538 reports they'd need to win the national vote by about 60-40. Fucking gerrymandering. That said, Trump is very unpopular, and midterms typically go to the minority party, so the dems should gain a few seats in the House.

The real thing to watch in 2018 and 2020 is state races, as then the dems can undo the gerrymandering that kept them out of power for 10 years

The real thing to watch in 2018 and 2020 is state races, as then the dems can undo the gerrymandering that kept them out of power for 10 years

Art. 1, Sec. 4, Clause 1:

Quote

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

That power extends even to dictating a voting age for federal elections; see Oregon v. Mitchell.

And as Justice Scalia noted in Vieth v. Jubelirer:

Quote

It is significant that the Framers provided a remedy for such practices* in the Constitution. Article 1, §4, while leaving in state legislatures the initial power to draw districts for federal elections, permitted Congress to “make or alter” those districts if it wished.

The Dems need to overcome the federal gerrymandering, not necessarily the state gerrymandering, because Congress possesses the residual power to draw the maps. If they overcome the state gerrymandering but not the federal, the Republicans could change to maps to favour them, but if they overcome the federal gerrymandering, they can draw the maps no matter what the states want.

What I don't know is if that power over the "Manner of holding Elections" extends to voter ID requirements; if it does, they could get rid of all the voter suppression laws that have been passed in the last decade.

Whomever thought up gerrymandering should have been shot before he uttered a single word of it to anyone.

You sure it wasn't independently discovered by multiple people?

If anything, it's a natural offshoot of Britain's "rotten boroughs," where boundaries were left untouched for decades until Old Sarum (population a few sheep) had more MPs than Manchester (booming industrial city).

Now Trump has said that Obama has 'wire-tapped' trump tower. The best thing to come out of it is Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying if that's true then it is a big deal. Ignoring the fact that Trump could get direct knowledge if there was any.

Now Trump has said that Obama has 'wire-tapped' trump tower. The best thing to come out of it is Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying if that's true then it is a big deal. Ignoring the fact that Trump could get direct knowledge if there was any.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJTGjxhcCI4

The Trump's surrogate's response to that reporter was essentially that by "take the media seriously" Trump has taken the sum total of media reporting, including the tinfoil hat fringe-especially the tinfoil hat fringe and come out howling "muh Obama tapppped muh wires" like a confused centenarian thinking that he's back dodging ordinance in the Somme. This is supposed to...reassure people?

You mean "How long before Trump goes on a Twitter tirade about how judges are threatening national security?"

EDIT: But then this is of course the old trick: propose something really outrageous so that your follow-up looks reasonable. (You see the same thing with abortion; for instance, in Ohio, Kasich vetoed a bill that would have banned it after about six weeks so that he could look reasonable signing a twenty-week ban.)

Failing that, of course, you just keep signing slightly modified versions of the same thing to overwhelm the courts.

"That's what America is about, a land of dreams and opportunity, There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less. But they too had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters, might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land."

If it gets bounced off the courts again expect more entertaining tweet-trums from Donnie.

Is there a precedent a politician promising to ban something and then discovering that in order to keep their promise they have studiously avoid calling their ban a ban of the thing they're trying to ban?

Do I think the Orange Piss Pot is mentally ill? No. I think he's just so incredably self-centered and ego centric that he has no empathy or decency that hasn't withered and died on the vine. The man's world view is classic "got mine fuck you" and he will only ultimately be for himself. He will throw anyone and everyone under a bus just to save his own skin and that includes the rest of the country.

Ironbite-and the GOP will be the first up against the wall and Trump will be firing the first shot.

In other news, you know that one trillion in spending on infrastructure that Donald Trump is looking for? How are we going to pay for that? With taxes? No see that would make the poor 2% of America's population have to spend their precious money. No were going to add more tolls to roads or up public transportation costs, so you can spend more of your hard earned money going to work everyday.

A federal judge in Hawaii issued a nationwide order Wednesday evening blocking President Trump’s ban on travel from parts of the Muslim world, dealing a political blow to the White House and signaling that proponents of the ban face a long and risky legal battle ahead.

The ruling was the second frustrating defeat for Mr. Trump’s travel ban, after a federal court in Seattle halted an earlier version of the executive order last month. Mr. Trump responded to that setback with fury, lashing out at the judiciary before ultimately abandoning the order.

He issued a new and narrower travel ban on March 6, with the aim of pre-empting new lawsuits by abandoning some of the most contentious elements of the first version.

But Mr. Trump evidently failed in that goal: Democratic states and nonprofit groups that work with immigrants and refugees raced into court to attack the updated order, alleging that it was a thinly veiled version of the ban on Muslim migration that he had pledged to enact last year, as a presidential candidate.

Continue reading the main storyThe Trump White HouseStories about President Trump’s administration.Donald Trump Budget Slashes Funds for E.P.A. and State DepartmentMAR 15Jackson and Trump: How Two Populist Presidents CompareMAR 15Is It Illegal to Publish a President’s Tax Returns?MAR 15Trump Calls 2005 Tax Return Release ‘Fake News’MAR 15U.S. May Soon Increase Pressure on China to Constrain North KoreaMAR 15See More »

RECENT COMMENTS

MareeB 1 hour agoChecks and balances!I'm sure we'll see a twitter meltdown sometime soon. Unless he's still fighting with Snoop Dogg.It seems this was also...Tracy Mitrano 1 hour agoThe Trump Administration is testing the Constitution of the United States. For school children, this kind of activity is a textbook civil...Ludwig 1 hour agoI think the federal judge is overstepping his authority. The president does have such powers under the constitution. But Trump has been...SEE ALL COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENTAdministration lawyers argued in multiple courts on Wednesday that the president was merely exercising his national security powers and that no element of the executive order, as written, could be construed as a religious test for travelers.

But in the lawsuit brought by Hawaii’s attorney general, Doug Chin, Judge Derrick K. Watson appeared skeptical of the government’s claim that past comments by Mr. Trump and his allies had no bearing on the case.

“Are you saying we close our eyes to the sequence of statements before this?” Judge Watson, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, asked in a hearing Wednesday before he ruled against the administration.

Yeah the argument that the past statements made by the administration hold no merit in this case really didn't hold water. Which I suspected would be the case. It's still the same travel ban just with a new hat. That's it.

Is it just me, or is there a common refrain among Trump's supporters that "he said he'd get things done and by golly, that's what he's doing!" without anyone actually questioning whether or not the shit he's getting done is actually making things better for people?

He might, Trump believes in nothing but Trump remember and he can use this drama to fire up his base and distract them from the fact that they'll lose their healthcare, won't get their old jobs back and that a whole lot of his cabinet and people close to him are real cozy with Russia.

Not that he isn't racist, he's fucking racist but it's not his primary motivation, that would be getting adulation from rubes and enriching himself.

Is it just me, or is there a common refrain among Trump's supporters that "he said he'd get things done and by golly, that's what he's doing!" without anyone actually questioning whether or not the shit he's getting done is actually making things better for people?

It gives the authoritarians the feeling that there is a strong leadership. Facts be damned, it must be good since it feels safe.

Remember when I said that when Trump says he will "run USA like a business" he really means "slash and burn, take out as much profits as you can while destroying it" ...Which is how he bankrupted casinos he was running and destroyed most of his other businesses as well.

And Comey just came out with the "Yeah we're looking into a Russian Connection with the Trump campaign and have been since July" stunner on the Trump Administration. Wait....so why'd you give us that bullshit about Hillary?

Ironbite-OH I KNOW WHY BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT HE WOULDN'T BE AS BAD AS HE ACTUALLY IS!

Is it just me, or has the Raging Cheeto already visibly aged during his first few weeks in office? Shit, at least Obama took a year or so before he started to look kinda haggard. At this rate, he'll probably die of a heart attack before the year's up.

Is it just me, or has the Raging Cheeto already visibly aged during his first few weeks in office? Shit, at least Obama took a year or so before he started to look kinda haggard. At this rate, he'll probably die of a heart attack before the year's up.

Is it just me, or has the Raging Cheeto already visibly aged during his first few weeks in office? Shit, at least Obama took a year or so before he started to look kinda haggard. At this rate, he'll probably die of a heart attack before the year's up.

Yes fucking please! I'd love to attend Trump's funeral.

Problem is, then your get Pence AKA Trump without even the faux-populism and a shit-ton more actual misogyny and homophobia.

Is it just me, or has the Raging Cheeto already visibly aged during his first few weeks in office? Shit, at least Obama took a year or so before he started to look kinda haggard. At this rate, he'll probably die of a heart attack before the year's up.

Yes fucking please! I'd love to attend Trump's funeral.

Problem is, then your get Pence AKA Trump without even the faux-populism and a shit-ton more actual misogyny and homophobia.

Let's be real here. Pence is your ordinary garden-variety reactionary. Bad, sure, but he's not Trump. He'll do things like get rid of health care, try to ban gay marriage and abortions, and enforce Christianity, but Trump will do all those things too. What he won't do is deliberately insult world leaders because he's feeling angry, make up imaginary wiretappings because he's had a bad week, and try to call into question the basic structures of our government. Those are things he won't do, and that's why I'd rather have President Pence than Trumpy.

I have been authorised by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

And now for the FBI explanation for why they didn't talk about this during the election while going public about how they "definitely may have found something on Clinton" and then waiting a few days before going "oops, my bad, we got nothing."

Is it just me, or has the Raging Cheeto already visibly aged during his first few weeks in office? Shit, at least Obama took a year or so before he started to look kinda haggard. At this rate, he'll probably die of a heart attack before the year's up.

Yes fucking please! I'd love to attend Trump's funeral.

Problem is, then your get Pence AKA Trump without even the faux-populism and a shit-ton more actual misogyny and homophobia.

Let's be real here. Pence is your ordinary garden-variety reactionary. Bad, sure, but he's not Trump. He'll do things like get rid of health care, try to ban gay marriage and abortions, and enforce Christianity, but Trump will do all those things too. What he won't do is deliberately insult world leaders because he's feeling angry, make up imaginary wiretappings because he's had a bad week, and try to call into question the basic structures of our government. Those are things he won't do, and that's why I'd rather have President Pence than Trumpy.

It might be easier for these actions to become normalized under a less obviously monstrous leader like Pence. Would people be as motivated to resist him? I truly don't know but I am worried that the answer is no.

On the other hand, there is a good possibility that Bannon would lose at least some of his power, hopefully most of it since Pence is not as easily manipulated as Trump. That would be a huge deal.

And now for the FBI explanation for why they didn't talk about this during the election while going public about how they "definitely may have found something on Clinton" and then waiting a few days before going "oops, my bad, we got nothing."

And now for the FBI explanation for why they didn't talk about this during the election while going public about how they "definitely may have found something on Clinton" and then waiting a few days before going "oops, my bad, we got nothing."

...

...

...Are they going to explain that?

No

One theory I heard bandied around (by completely biased but amusing commentators) was that Comey thought he was buying himself some appearance of impartiality. Effectively Comey thought Clinton had an unassailable lead and wanted cover for when he had to start prosecutions of members of the Trump campaign post election. Although this appears entirely too cynical.

And now for the FBI explanation for why they didn't talk about this during the election while going public about how they "definitely may have found something on Clinton" and then waiting a few days before going "oops, my bad, we got nothing."

...

...

...Are they going to explain that?

No

One theory I heard bandied around (by completely biased but amusing commentators) was that Comey thought he was buying himself some appearance of impartiality. Effectively Comey thought Clinton had an unassailable lead and wanted cover for when he had to start prosecutions of members of the Trump campaign post election. Although this appears entirely too cynical.

It simply isn't possible to be too cynical with this utterly shambolic shitshow.

This is quite frankly the best title/cover image combination of all time (http://theslot.jezebel.com/the-republican-health-care-bill-has-crashed-and-burned-1793579916?rev=1490304438040&utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow)

Coincidentally, the best description I have heard of Trump is from fivethirtyeight, where they call him "A honey badger driving a zamboni," which that image just happens to resemble.

And the healthcare bill failed!Fuck you guys for trying to push that poison through. I'm glad some Repubs had some major sense in them to keep that shit away from the Senate.

Now Trump is trying to blame the Democrats for not supporting this bill through. Nah Uh buddy, you guys control the house by a large margin. Your party failed to provide the votes for it. This is your fault!

"TRUMP: So, Paul, how's it going over there today? Am I winning or are you losing?"

Got to admit, all policy aside, Trump's ultimatum was a masterful solution to his political problem with the AHCA... although this was largely a problem of his own making. Trump saves quite a bit of face (not all of it, but quite a bit), and Ryan/Congress ends up looking like a complete failure, making Trump all the more powerful on the Hill.

Breitbart comments are saying this was the Trump plan all along to destroy Paul Ryan, which is absurd, but Trump has cannier spur-of-the-moment political instincts than I once gave him credit for. He took the trilemma presented by FiveThirtyEight the other day (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-has-no-good-options-on-health-care/)and kinda did the best parts of all three.

In many respects, AHCA was indeed more conservative than the ACA. Entitlement reforms, tax reforms, and so forth -- all very conservative. But when it came to the core mechanics of health care delivery, which are really the center of the bill, AHCA tried to solve the "three-legged stool" problem by retaining a bunch of unwieldy regulations, backed up by imposing price controls on insurance companies. All in the name of "removing" an individual mandate that was not really removed in any meaningful sense. And where was the effort to seriously extend insurance portability, so you can carry one policy between jobs and into the individual market? You cannot have a successful continuous coverage mandate if there a whole lot of people out there who are incapable of maintaining continuous coverage!

The tax credits system was very conservative, I admit, but in the stupidest way possible. It's like if Paul Ryan wanted to play directly to every single stereotype about Republicans throwing the poor under the bus for the sake of middle-class whites (and the Freedom Caucus, I am sad to say, was all too eager to push him farther). I leave it to Avik Roy to say (https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/03/07/house-gops-obamacare-replacement-will-make-coverage-unaffordable-for-millions-otherwise-its-great/#3ffe83c237fd) what I think about all that.

Still, I've come to regret saying that I want an "actually conservative" bill. Parts of the AHCA that were unconservative were terrible... but parts that were, by any standard definition, pretty conservative, were also pretty terrible. Those parts managed to synergize to turn the core of this bill into an unholy, insurance-destroying mess.

So I guess what I want is a carefully thought-through bill that is built on conservative principles of minimal intervention, simplicity, state primacy, and individual empowerment -- but I'm willing to tax and spend quite a bit of money to get there, I don't think it's vital to cut taxes as part of a health care reform, and I want the poor to be not screwed over, all of which are traditionally considered old-school liberal priorities. Both the Huffington Post and Breitbart comment sections would crucify me for my plan. (Guess I'm still a Reformocon at heart, even after the last year.)

Of course, it is worth noting that ACA fans would likely say that their bill does indeed follow the principles of minimal intervention, simplicity, state primacy, and individual empowerment... but I think the ACA does those things in the same way the AHCA does insurance portability. Which is to say, it kinda looks like it might if you don't look closely, but then you do look closely and it's a horror show.

Does anyone think that Trump is secretly happy that Trumpcare didn't pass. That way most of Trumps key demographics can keep receiving benefits. All he has to do is stop calling it Obamacare and start calling it the Affordable Care Act.

It depends if his close circle has explained it to him since I doubt he is insightful enough to realize it by himself. He probably believes the anti-obamacare propaganda and it's possible Ryan & co are have not even bothered to explain the real situation to him.

Does anyone think that Trump is secretly happy that Trumpcare didn't pass. That way most of Trumps key demographics can keep receiving benefits. All he has to do is stop calling it Obamacare and start calling it the Affordable Care Act.

He is secretly happy that the AHCA was pulled, because it makes Ryan look weak for being unable to keep his caucus in line.

Trump and Ryan don't exactly get along and Trump would like nothing more than to have as House Speaker someone as pliable and subservient as Mitch McConnell.

Does anyone think that Trump is secretly happy that Trumpcare didn't pass. That way most of Trumps key demographics can keep receiving benefits. All he has to do is stop calling it Obamacare and start calling it the Affordable Care Act.

He is secretly happy that the AHCA was pulled, because it makes Ryan look weak for being unable to keep his caucus in line.

Trump and Ryan don't exactly get along and Trump would like nothing more than to have as House Speaker someone as pliable and subservient as Mitch McConnell.

But McConnell is in the Senate and not congress. Who in Congress would be as compliant as McConnel

Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro, whose show President Trump urged his followers on Twitter to watch earlier in the day, opened her program on Saturday evening by calling on Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to step down.

"Ryan needs to step down as Speaker of the House. The reason: He failed to deliver the votes on his healthcare bill, the one trumpeted to repeal and replace ObamaCare," Pirro said in her opening statement.

Which is exactly the type of dumbassity I expect from the Orange Piss Pot. He has no idea how politics actually works and thinks this strong arm tactic is the way to go. Couple this with Bannon having a shit list on his White House office wall and I expect some GOP seats to go blue come 2018 as Trump and Bannon seek to replace those republicans that were "disloyal" to him with more malleable puppets only to have the Dems swoop in and take those seats.

Does anyone think that Trump is secretly happy that Trumpcare didn't pass. That way most of Trumps key demographics can keep receiving benefits. All he has to do is stop calling it Obamacare and start calling it the Affordable Care Act.

Nah, he's not a big picture guy. He's a 'nick as much shit as you can and get out' type fella. Reading between the lines isn't common among people who don't like to read.

I vote simple incompetence over Machiavellian manipulation where Drumpf is concerned.

I'm not saying it was his original plan. He thought it would be simple "Who knew healthcare could be so complicated". Now that he's realised 'Obamacare' is probably pretty good and removing it would fuck his voters. His gut is now just to leave it. As long as he pretends the ACA is different to Obamacare he can pretend its all good and his voters will be happy with it.

I'm not saying it was his original plan. He thought it would be simple "Who knew healthcare could be so complicated". Now that he's realised 'Obamacare' is probably pretty good and removing it would fuck his voters. His gut is now just to leave it. As long as he pretends the ACA is different to Obamacare he can pretend its all good and his voters will be happy with it.

Well his voters are dumb enough to buy that line, I'll grant you that.

Sorry, sorry don't call them thick, bigoted or psychotic particularly if they are or they'll log into the FSTDT forums out of the blue, read this post and declare they aint never voting for no Demo-crat again and run off to hug their security blanket.

Yeah, that's the big if. As my dad always says, "The Democrats have an amazing talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory."

I won't deny this is true (seriously they had the most honest, qualified candidate running to continue the successful policies of a popular president and they still lost.) But the fact that the republicans can control the government completely and still defeat themselves so utterly that Obamacare looks here to stay, it's going to be interesting to see who can fail the hardest.

Also I wanted to share this quote

Quote

I've been thinking that right now, the Democrats really need to avoid falling into the grave the GOP dug for themselves by actually proposing new laws. Like just every chance they get the floor, throw something out there. Doesn't even matter if it's feasible. Propose single payer. Propose mincome. Propose phasing out fossil fuels by 2030. Propose Mars colonies. Propose open season on murdering billionaires. They don't all have to be good. Just get the ideas out there on the table. Change them from "Things no one would ever seriously try" to "Things we coulda tried if we hadn't left the arsonist party in charge." However many years later they get bakc in power, they've already got some stuff on the table that the people have heard of and thought about, instead of years of "Trust us, we'll have a great plan," which turns out to alienate everyone. And all those ideas that would've been considered unthinkable will have evolved into "The reasonable alternative to the clusterfuck we're in now."

Heck, since Hillary's chance has come and gone, maybe she could write a blog where every week she just very politely says what she'd have done instead.

Rather than the GOP's strategy of being "The party of No", they should as hard as they can be the party of "This instead".

I don't know if the senate rules allow it, but maybe when the vote on Gorsuch happens, instead of voting "Nay", get every single democrat to register their official vote for the record as "Merrick Garland.

Ok I voted for Trump but I am glad that this healthcare plan didn't go through. I am going to give it the benefit of the doubt and say that he probably is glad himself that it didn't go through, that means that the House can probably come up with a better plan. I know Trump isn't popular here but I like him so far.

Firstly, I liked how he speaks his mind, though at times I think there are times he needs to think before speaking. I also like that he supposedly isn't attached to the establishment and that he ran on his own campaign funds. Also, I am getting tired of all of the SJW, BLM, politically correct bullshit and he represented an opposition to that. (That SJW PC crap turned me into a centrist) I also liked that he wants to go after illegal immigrants who have been taking jobs away from Americans. I know personally of quite a few people who have either been passed over for some Mexican or have been fired from a majority Mexican job who possibly may have illegal immigrants in it. So I am against that but not for those who have came here the proper way and worked their asses off to be here, it's not fair for those to have gone through all that to build a life here and see illegals come in and get everything for free.Secondly, Hillary is corrupt. I have read some of the Wikileaks emails and I also have read about how she threatened and intimidated some of Bill's rape victims. She also had that whole thing with Benghazi and some other stuff that escapes me at the moment but all I knew was I didn't want her as President. Maybe someone else but I really feel the DNC messed up with having her run. If this makes me "dumb" or "stupid" then so be it, I know I won't get along with everyone on here.

I still have my own personal political beliefs about certain things. I don't hate anyone but I just want to be open about this.

Firstly, I liked how he speaks his mind, though at times I think there are times he needs to think before speaking. I also like that he supposedly isn't attached to the establishment and that he ran on his own campaign funds. Also, I am getting tired of all of the SJW, BLM, politically correct bullshit and he represented an opposition to that. (That SJW PC crap turned me into a centrist) I also liked that he wants to go after illegal immigrants who have been taking jobs away from Americans. I know personally of quite a few people who have either been passed over for some Mexican or have been fired from a majority Mexican job who possibly may have illegal immigrants in it. So I am against that but not for those who have came here the proper way and worked their asses off to be here, it's not fair for those to have gone through all that to build a life here and see illegals come in and get everything for free.Secondly, Hillary is corrupt. I have read some of the Wikileaks emails and I also have read about how she threatened and intimidated some of Bill's rape victims. She also had that whole thing with Benghazi and some other stuff that escapes me at the moment but all I knew was I didn't want her as President. Maybe someone else but I really feel the DNC messed up with having her run. If this makes me "dumb" or "stupid" then so be it, I know I won't get along with everyone on here.

I still have my own personal political beliefs about certain things. I don't hate anyone but I just want to be open about this.

Hey Radiation,

Just a couple of questions, correct me if I'm wrong on anything:

1) I thought you were a Muslim, or at least had some sort of islamic tint to your religious beliefs, was that right? And do/are you still?

2) I also thought you had trouble finding work/healthcare? Are you on Medicare/ Medicaid? I remember you had trouble with your teeth

3) What do you think immigrants (legal or illegal) get for free that americans don't?

4) What was it about Benghazi and Hillary's involvement that concerns you?

5) Are you not concerned about Trump ordering a military strike in Yemen which resulted in the death of both a US soldier and an 8 year old Yemeni girl which was considered too risky by the previous administration? It also did not result in any new intelligence information. I

6) I've heard the story about Hillary threatening rape victims, although when I've read the details the apparent threat is along the lines of Hillary saying 'hello', are you not equally concerned about the stories that Trump raped an underage girl and has sexually assaulted women personally?

7) When you say Hillary is corrupt what do you mean? Is it concerns about nepotism? Like allowing her totally unqualified daughter to have an office in the Whitehouse or security clearance?

8 ) Were you not concerned that a guy who said he has effectively bribed politicians and wouldn't release his tax returns was corrupt?

9) Do you really think that Trump and the Republicans are going to benefit you and your family, and if so why?

I'm curious about these things, I'm not calling you stupid or dumb

Edit: sorry I didn't mean to put an emoji in, I just wanted it to be number 8

Firstly, I liked how he speaks his mind, though at times I think there are times he needs to think before speaking.

This I admit I can't understand. "Speaking your mind" is one of those things that sounds good, but I don't get how it's a reason to vote for someone on it's own merits. Especially when what's on their mind is stuff like "The Tiananmen square massacre was strong leadership" or "Global warming was invented by the Chinese."

Quote

I also like that he supposedly isn't attached to the establishment and that he ran on his own campaign funds.

You like how he supposedly isn't?

Quote

Also, I am getting tired of all of the SJW, BLM, politically correct bullshit and he represented an opposition to that. (That SJW PC crap turned me into a centrist)

Again I don't get that. Sure there are extremists and assholes in the internet Social Justice movement, but how does that make Trump qualified to be president. How is being "politically incorrect" more important then being actually correct?

Quote

I also liked that he wants to go after illegal immigrants who have been taking jobs away from Americans. I know personally of quite a few people who have either been passed over for some Mexican or have been fired from a majority Mexican job who possibly may have illegal immigrants in it. So I am against that but not for those who have came here the proper way and worked their asses off to be here, it's not fair for those to have gone through all that to build a life here and see illegals come in and get everything for free.

None of this is true. Yes you may have some anecdotal evidence but overall economist find the impact of illegal immigration on jobs to be negligable, and it's been declining since the 2008 crash anyway. Nor are Trump's proposals going to do much to stop it anyway. And illegal immigrants aren't getting anything for free, indeed they get lower pay and less welfare while paying just as much for any other goods and services.

Quote

Secondly, Hillary is corrupt. I have read some of the Wikileaks emails and I also have read about how she threatened and intimidated some of Bill's rape victims. She also had that whole thing with Benghazi and some other stuff that escapes me at the moment but all I knew was I didn't want her as President. Maybe someone else but I really feel the DNC messed up with having her run.

Do you have a source on the intimidating rape victims one? I ask because I hadn't heard that before, and given all the crap about her e-mails and Benghazi if there was any truth to that I would assume fox would have been shouting it from the rooftops.

Anyway does Trump's corruption bother you? ie the Trump University scam or how he's been using the office of the presidency to advance his businesses or the possibility of him working with Putin to undermine the US elections?

1) I thought you were a Muslim, or at least had some sort of islamic tint to your religious beliefs, was that right? And do/are you still?

I am no longer Muslim, I still have the materials on it but I really no longer practice any aspect of it. I am in fact researching Kemetic Science and Thelema right now.

Quote

2) I also thought you had trouble finding work/healthcare? Are you on Medicare/ Medicaid? I remember you had trouble with your teeth

I have Medicare/Medicaid and I have dentures that were paid by my grandma who has since passed away in 2012. I was going through school at the time but had to drop out due to being switched on multiple medications for my bi-polar.

Quote

3) What do you think immigrants (legal or illegal) get for free that americans don't?

The truth? I have no problem with those that have come here legally, I've had relatives from Sicily that came here through the proper channels and have worked their butts off to be American citizens. They have to pay taxes and stuff just like regular Americans. As for illegals they shouldn't be here, period. They come here, have babies and get on welfare, disability etc and those resources could be used for Americans in need. Here's an article about the impact of illegals on the social safety network, it's short but to the point:

Yes, they compete for jobs with native workers, and that causes a lot of problems for a lot of people. However, where the rubber meets the road, the biggest threat to our economy is how these people will impact our social safety nets and other public programs.

and

Quote

As a country, we have to be realistic about illegal immigration: as long as the U.S. economy offers greater opportunities than the economies in Central America and Mexico, people will continue to do what they need to do to get here. We just don't have the money or manpower to do much about it.

Here is another link that I found that seems to be intensive about illegal immigration.

4) What was it about Benghazi and Hillary's involvement that concerns you?

The fact that she left four of our people behind and did not rescue them when the terrorist attacks happened, that's what I remember at least.

Quote

5) Are you not concerned about Trump ordering a military strike in Yemen which resulted in the death of both a US soldier and an 8 year old Yemeni girl which was considered too risky by the previous administration? It also did not result in any new intelligence information.

I don't watch the news as I don't have a TV so I had to look that up, but, didn't Obama strike some Middle Eastern country with numerous drone strikes and pretty much start the Syrian Civil War? I recall hearing a lot about drone strikes so if Obama did that then why is everyone jumping on Trump about this? It's awful but Obama seems to have done much worse.

6) I've heard the story about Hillary threatening rape victims, although when I've read the details the apparent threat is along the lines of Hillary saying 'hello', are you not equally concerned about the stories that Trump raped an underage girl and has sexually assaulted women personally?

She allegedly did, I wouldn't put it past her. As far as Trump, I have checked that story out and it seems that it really hasn't been verified.

Quote

7) When you say Hillary is corrupt what do you mean? Is it concerns about nepotism? Like allowing her totally unqualified daughter to have an office in the Whitehouse or security clearance?

Like I said, she supposedly intimidated some rape victims. She didn't help our ambassadors in Libya when they needed to be rescued. She said something racist in the past, something along the lines of "We need to bring these [black/inner city] thugs to heel." She and Obama have worsened the situation in the Middle East by bombing them and starting the Syrian Civil War. She didn't keep important, secret information on a secure server but used her own to send emails and such, and one more thing that is escaping my memory at the moment.

Quote

8 ) Were you not concerned that a guy who said he has effectively bribed politicians and wouldn't release his tax returns was corrupt?

How true is that? I know that Rachel Maddow got his 2005 tax forms that showed that Trump did indeed pay taxes. The media has had it out for Trump since day 1.

Quote

9) Do you really think that Trump and the Republicans are going to benefit you and your family, and if so why?

I don't know but I took a chance by voting for him. Perhaps by getting rid of illegals, trying to get manufacturing jobs back here in the USA, renegotiating NAFTA perhaps people like my nieces and nephew can get into jobs that are substantial, have good wages and be able to live comfortable enough lives.

I'm curious about these things, I'm not calling you stupid or dumb

Edit: sorry I didn't mean to put an emoji in, I just wanted it to be number 8

It's ok lol. This took me a while to answer, I don't have my regular computer so I had to look some things up. I just only ask that people respect my viewpoints as I would respect theirs. I don't want any trouble.

While I agree that illegal immigrants are a bad thing for society (this is usually the part where a bunch of bleeding heart Americans accuse me of racism against Mexicans and only Mexicans with no hint of irony or self-awareness) and that it's ridiculous that America goes out of its way to not catch and deport them, Trump is not going to be the one to change that. It's people like Trump who benefit from illegal immigrants, as they can pay them well below minimum wage and withhold things like benefits and safety measures that legal workers require. He doesn't want them gone and it absolutely shows in his proposed solutions. Instead of doing the sensible thing and having law enforcement stop deliberately turning a blind eye to illegals (kind of like this, for example (http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/03/15/24966/lapd-eases-impound-policy-illegal-immigrants/)), he wants to spend billions building a wall across the entire Mexican border that will do absolutely nothing to impede illegal immigrants, not to mention do nothing about those that are already in America.

Basically, Trump's not making an honest effort to remove illegal immigrants, he's simply pandering to those who think illegals all cross the border via the Speedy Gonzales method.

I don't see how illegal immigrants are bad for society. Particularly in the US they pay more in taxes than they take out in services. Besides which try running the us agriculture industry without them.

They have also found that if they start cracking down on immigrants it encourages crime because immigrants won't call the police. They have seen how this happens in LA

I don't see how illegal immigrants are bad for society. Particularly in the US they pay more in taxes than they take out in services. Besides which try running the us agriculture industry without them.

They have also found that if they start cracking down on immigrants it encourages crime because immigrants won't call the police. They have seen how this happens in LA

It's bad because it's all at the lower class's expense, which is already having a rather bad time of things. Those illegals paying more taxes than they use in services are doing so because they're doing some unskilled job for well below minimum wage, a job that would otherwise be done by a legal worker for at least minimum wage and benefits.

Not to mention, the poor paying less taxes than they recieve in government services is exactly how it's supposed to work. It's the rich who're meant to pay more than they receive. It's one of the ways the government reduces inequality, much like progressive tax and minimum wage and benefits. Illegals fucking it up is not a good thing for society overall.

As for your other points, they wouldn't be an issue in the first place if the US took the same approach as the rest of the world and tried to keep their numbers to an absolute minimum, rather than simply paying lip service to the idea while in practice keeping them around as a substitute for slaves.

I don't see how illegal immigrants are bad for society. Particularly in the US they pay more in taxes than they take out in services. Besides which try running the us agriculture industry without them.

They have also found that if they start cracking down on immigrants it encourages crime because immigrants won't call the police. They have seen how this happens in LA

It's bad because it's all at the lower class's expense, which is already having a rather bad time of things. Those illegals paying more taxes than they use in services are doing so because they're doing some unskilled job for well below minimum wage, a job that would otherwise be done by a legal worker for at least minimum wage and benefits.

Not to mention, the poor paying less taxes than they recieve in government services is exactly how it's supposed to work. It's the rich who're meant to pay more than they receive. It's one of the ways the government reduces inequality, much like progressive tax and minimum wage and benefits. Illegals fucking it up is not a good thing for society overall.

As for your other points, they wouldn't be an issue in the first place if the US took the same approach as the rest of the world and tried to keep their numbers to an absolute minimum, rather than simply paying lip service to the idea while in practice keeping them around as a substitute for slaves.

I can't help but think that most of those problems would go away if employers could not get away with paying them less money than legal workers

I don't know but I took a chance by voting for him. Perhaps by getting rid of illegals, trying to get manufacturing jobs back here in the USA, renegotiating NAFTA perhaps people like my nieces and nephew can get into jobs that are substantial, have good wages and be able to live comfortable enough lives.

Those jobs aren't coming back. They're gone to countries where they can pay their workers a dime a day. Unless you want to abolish the minimum wage and hike income inequality to even more ridiculous levels.

Why wouldn't you? Hillary Clinton is one of the most honest politicians in the United States (according to politifact). I'm not aware of anything in her backround that suggests she'd do this. I do not believe that story is true.

Quote

She didn't help our ambassadors in Libya when they needed to be rescued.

That is not true. Investigations found no evidence of any wrongdoing on her part.

She and Obama have worsened the situation in the Middle East by bombing them and...

Now I will grant you that one. The drone war was the worst thing about the Obama presidency. However considering that Trump said he wants to "bomb the shit out of them (ISIS) and sent exxon to suck up their oil" and said in the first debate that he would respond to Iranian sailors taunting American sailors by sinking Iranian ships at sea, I don't see how this can be a point in his favor.

Quote

...starting the Syrian Civil War.

...What are you talking about? The start of the Syrian civil war had nothing to do with Obama at all. This is what happened: 1) Non-violent protesters call for democracy in Syria. 2) Assad has his military open fire, killing thousands. 3) Protesters start shooting back. 4) Islamist groups join shooting, eventually take over resistance. Obama and Hillary didn't have anything to do with it. You can criticize their handling of the situation, but they did not start the war.

Quote

She said something racist in the past, something along the lines of "We need to bring these [black/inner city] thugs to heel."

What?

...WHAT???

Are you freaking kidding me?

Donald Trump support racist conspiracy theories about Obama's birth. He started his campaign calling Mexican immigrants rapists. He called for an illegal ban on an entire religion. He retweeted fake statistics on black crime rates from neo-nazis. He refused to condemn the KKK in a live interview. He said that five black teenagers who were proven innocent by DNA evidence should be executed anyway. he ran a campaign entirely based on racism, to the point where stormfront founder Don Black credited him with reviving Neo-Nazism as a political force.

DIRECT QUESTION

Does any of that bother you?

Because I'm sorry but I don't believe you when you say that Hillary allegedly "bringing thugs to heel" offends you if your fine with everything Trump did.

I'm sorry, but saying Hillary Clinton being racist is why you voted for Trump is quite possibly the most ironic thing I've heard all year.

It's probably the most obvious one but in almost* every category Hillary is more qualified than Donald so focusing on any of her flaws seems odd as it means ignoring the same flaws in him.

Corruption: Trump has several legal problems and it already is apparent that he is using presidency to help his business.Track record: Clinton is a successful politician and has done well in business. Trump has repeatedly failed and even his most "succesfull" businesses are either: Burning down a successful company to get some money out of it quickly or attaching his name to something that he cannot control at all and taking credit for the success (which seems to be his MO as a president as well.)Marriage: Complaints about Clinton are mainly "her husband cheated on her" (as if that is her fault) while Trump himself has cheated on his wives and bragged about it.Birtherism: Trump was one of the major celebreties going on and on about Obama having faked his birth certificate yet he somehow had the audacity to claim that Hillary started it?"Saying it like it is" claim: Trump lies repeatedly. He misdirects, he lies, he says things that are quite easily disproven just so that he can be on the news again. And somehow his fans at the same time consider him honest and claim that he doesn't mean what he said. Like all those voters who said that they think Trump was being metaphorical when he said that he is definitely going to build a physical wall on the border. Clinton has lied occasionally but never in the same scope as Trump does repeatedly.Work time: Hillary has been on the job constantly for years. Trump did very little by himself in business (since his companies run better without him) and as a president has spent more time on vacation than any other POTUS before him. Trump himself complained about Obama taking vacations and spending tax payer money and now he himself does it and even more... Granted that some think that this is just Trump delegating again and that this is a good thing, but it's not like Hillary (and Obama) knew how to delegate as well but still stayed on the job and at least tried to keep track of what is going on (while Trump is infamous for ignoring intel.)

The list goes on. I am not trying to attack Radiation (or other Trump fans) and I'm just merely astonished at the double standards here. How do people ignore all the evidence against Trump and why focus on minor nitpicking only when talking about Clinton?

*The sole exception being that Hillary is a career politician so Trump can be seen as an outsider. ...And some people might think that being a woman is a flaw.

Firstly, I liked how he speaks his mind, though at times I think there are times he needs to think before speaking. I also like that he supposedly isn't attached to the establishment and that he ran on his own campaign funds. Also, I am getting tired of all of the SJW, BLM, politically correct bullshit and he represented an opposition to that. (That SJW PC crap turned me into a centrist) I also liked that he wants to go after illegal immigrants who have been taking jobs away from Americans. I know personally of quite a few people who have either been passed over for some Mexican or have been fired from a majority Mexican job who possibly may have illegal immigrants in it. So I am against that but not for those who have came here the proper way and worked their asses off to be here, it's not fair for those to have gone through all that to build a life here and see illegals come in and get everything for free.Secondly, Hillary is corrupt. I have read some of the Wikileaks emails and I also have read about how she threatened and intimidated some of Bill's rape victims. She also had that whole thing with Benghazi and some other stuff that escapes me at the moment but all I knew was I didn't want her as President. Maybe someone else but I really feel the DNC messed up with having her run. If this makes me "dumb" or "stupid" then so be it, I know I won't get along with everyone on here.

I still have my own personal political beliefs about certain things. I don't hate anyone but I just want to be open about this.

Everything you say about Hillary, Trump seems to have taken as his job description - he is little more than Putin's hand puppet, the Russian's hand wedged tightly up his ass and making him talk.

As for your talk of an opposition to "SJW, BLM PC Crap", it has turned you into little better than Milo Yiannopolous, not a centrist. As for people passed over for Mexicans or other Latinos, well, my heart is absolutely dry if those incidents even happened at all. The much spoken of white working class is moribund, delirious, despicable, and deserves to rot - let them have their heroin needles and Xanax "prescriptions".

Trump does not say it like it is. He says it like how he wishes it was. He claims to be strong but he is a weak willed, easily manipulable man that can be easily led around by the nose.

The media rightfully has it out for this hideously corrupt waste of skin crowned by a dead ferret and his septic, pus filled followers.

Mitch McConnell, for instance, received over $250,000 from the telecoms, but Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) sold out your privacy for a paltry $1,000. (The newly appointed Sen. Luther Strange from Alabama hasn't even had time to take any money and still sold you out!) In the House, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA 23rd) took almost $100,000, while Reps. Fred Upton (R-MI 6th), John Shimkus (R-IL 15th) and Steve Scalise (R-LA 1st) took over $100,000, and Rep. Gregory Walden (R-OR 2nd) took a whopping $155,100, but Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK 1st) cost only $1,000, Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN 1st) needed only $500, and Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA 3rd) was willing to go for a mere $300.

All the stuff about Trump's lying, sexism and so on are important in their own right but they pale when compared to a couple of vital issues:

1. Climate change. This is something I myself didn't really consider enough earlier but he is helping the Republicans to do irreparable damage. Trump personally and the Republican party as a whole deny and directly contribute to the worst direct threat our species is dealing with.

2. Health care. While it seems the ACA repeal has failed for now it is not for the lack of trying by Trump & co. This would have directly killed tens of millions of Americans.

I would be interested in knowing how can one ignore these issues and vote Trump if they are not living in a complete Republican / conservative bubble and have the time to actually do some basic research on them.

Not to mention the inhumane way Trump has handled deporting undocumented immigrants (deporting people who have no lives, jobs, homes or connections to the countries they were born in) and his (illegal anyway) Muslim bans.

Trump has botched basically everything he's done as president and I find it hard to believe anyone who isn't die hard Republican or just plain stupid could continue to support him.

Donald Trump support racist conspiracy theories about Obama's birth. He started his campaign calling Mexican immigrants rapists. He called for an illegal ban on an entire religion. He retweeted fake statistics on black crime rates from neo-nazis. He refused to condemn the KKK in a live interview. He said that five black teenagers who were proven innocent by DNA evidence should be executed anyway. he ran a campaign entirely based on racism, to the point where stormfront founder Don Black credited him with reviving Neo-Nazism as a political force.

DIRECT QUESTION

Does any of that bother you?

Because I'm sorry but I don't believe you when you say that Hillary allegedly "bringing thugs to heel" offends you if your fine with everything Trump did.

So what if Trump is "racist" seriously the only people pumping out that narrative is the leftist media. Even if he did say that shit that's on him and he is not perfect in anyway, he's human, but don't act like the Democrats can't be racist either. You do know about the Dixiecrats right? Maybe you should look back at the Civil Rights era and see who the people were that actually wanted to oppress the black people.

Speaking of racists, the people that I have been seeing that are the most openly racist people are blacks. Look at their BLM marches. You can't tell me them saying "kill all white people" and "fuck all white people" isn't racist. I don't hate blacks but there has been an increasing amount of demonization of white people by the left.

Another thing, the second largest group of people who voted for Trump were Hispanics so he must have done something to appeal to them.

Where is it that he refused to condemn the KKK? I don't know about the teenagers so I can't speak on that but the only reason Trump is "racist" is because the media, who are mostly liberal leaning (seriously did you even see their ridiculous projections on election night only to see every state they projected for Hillary to turn red?! They propped Hillary up so much that people could see the bias in the media) has ran a narrative that Trump was racist while sweeping any flaws of Hillary under the rug. With that said, I am done with this thread.

Yeah, seriously, you're saying that one of the reasons you voted for Trump is because Clinton is supposedly racist. And now you're deflecting Trump's demonstrable racist actions and statements. That's just plain hypocrisy.

So what if Trump is "racist" seriously the only people pumping out that narrative is the leftist media. Even if he did say that shit that's on him and he is not perfect in anyway, he's human, but don't act like the Democrats can't be racist either. You do know about the Dixiecrats right? Maybe you should look back at the Civil Rights era and see who the people were that actually wanted to oppress the black people.

This is such a stupid statement. Trump can't be too bad because look Dixiecrats? Nobody holds the Dixiecrats up as shining members of the democratic party like Republicans are with Trump. And do you know what happened to those Dixiecrats? Did you ever hear of the southern strategy? All of those civil rights era Democrats had to go somewhere, and they turned into modern day southern Republicans.

Quote

Speaking of racists, the people that I have been seeing that are the most openly racist people are blacks. Look at their BLM marches. You can't tell me them saying "kill all white people" and "fuck all white people" isn't racist. I don't hate blacks but there has been an increasing amount of demonization of white people by the left.

Black people whom have been held down since slavery, since Jim Crow era laws, who were gentrified into poorer neighborhoods with less government support, and segregated because white people didn't want to see them or deal with them, and are still being treated like shit from law enforcement to this day, and are now being continued to be held down by systemic racism that has now pretty much become cultural due to laws passed by white people for white peoples own personal gain, and they are mad at white people for this? Stop the fucking presses! They have every right to be mad. And yes there are some racist eggs in the bunch but I wonder how that fucking happened? You don't get to deflect the racism they've received against them and still receive because they're properly angry.

Quote

Another thing, the second largest group of people who voted for Trump were Hispanics so he must have done something to appeal to them.

Yeah, and Hispanics are the second largest ethnicity next to white people in the states, and growing. So it's no shock that the second largest group who voted for Trump were the second largest ethnicity. Even with that Hillary Clinton still won the majority of Hispanic voters.

Interesting potted history about the Dixiecrats, yep they were racist which is why Nixon courted them leading to the thick vein of racism in the GOP culminating in President Trump.

Also maybe we're talking about a different BLM but they seemed more "getting shot by cops kind of blows" than "black folks uber alles". Someone should tell the white people joining them at their marches.

Radiation, this is fucking strange. I'm not convinced you aren't just fucking with us. U trolling?

Just out of curiosity I did a Google search. It seems there really is a BLM leader in Toronto who is an actual black supremacist and right wing sites have had a field day with her. Even she did not call for killing of all whites, her words were twisted on that particular issue. Of course, her opinions must mean the whole movement is racist and that racism against whites causes more damage than racism against blacks. If you live in the same planet as Radiation does nowadays, that is.

Edit: a link to Toronto Sun if someone is interested http://www.torontosun.com/2017/02/11/black-lives-matter-co-founder-appears-to-label-white-people-defects

Radiation, this is fucking strange. I'm not convinced you aren't just fucking with us. U trolling?

I did vote for Trump but maybe I could be wrong. The fact is I still have liberal views, more left of center. All the stuff about SJWs, BLM, the demonization of white people, etc I got from watching mostly alt-right YouTube channels and websites. I could go on but I am at the food pantry right now.

Radiation, this is fucking strange. I'm not convinced you aren't just fucking with us. U trolling?

I did vote for Trump but maybe I could be wrong. The fact is I still have liberal views, more left of center. All the stuff about SJWs, BLM, the demonization of white people, etc I got from watching mostly alt-right YouTube channels and websites. I could go on but I am at the food pantry right now.

Are you sure you hold liberal views if you are parroting alt-right talking points? I'm a bit surprised because I would have thought you would be the natural demographic for Sanders. I know people were upset about him not winning the democratic nomination but I would have thought you would go with the party closest to what he was pushing for.

Radiation, this is fucking strange. I'm not convinced you aren't just fucking with us. U trolling?

I did vote for Trump but maybe I could be wrong. The fact is I still have liberal views, more left of center. All the stuff about SJWs, BLM, the demonization of white people, etc I got from watching mostly alt-right YouTube channels and websites. I could go on but I am at the food pantry right now.

Are you sure you hold liberal views if you are parroting alt-right talking points? I'm a bit surprised because I would have thought you would be the natural demographic for Sanders. I know people were upset about him not winning the democratic nomination but I would have thought you would go with the party closest to what he was pushing for.

Yes I have some liberal views. I believe I am homosexual so I am for LGBT rights, right now I am wrestling with that part of my identity. I am on the fence about abortion as I don't like it but I also think that we need clinics with competent doctors who know the human body rather than go back to the days where women died from botched abortions. I actually voted for Sanders in the primaries, I wasn't too upset but there was something about Hillary that I didn't trust, I just don't like Hillary for some reason so I didn't want to vote for her and I didn't want to throw my vote away. I also think the DNC is fractured over this and I am hoping they get things back together again by 2020, then maybe I will vote Democratic again. I just don't like all of the far left stuff that is happening right now, particularly with race as it feels like a personal attack on me. Like I said I have been watching alt-right videos on Youtube, namely Mark Dice ( I don't like him entirely since he goes into conspiracy theories and I don't necessarily believe in those, like the Pizzagate thing) Andywarski, Rebel Media, Ben Shapiro, Some of Milo Yiannopolous (I don't like him that much anymore since he is a pedophile apologist) Some Black Guy, Tommy Sotomayor, MyNameIsJosephine and others that I can't remember right now. I don't agree with everything in the alt-right but I also don't agree with everything on the alt-left or on the left these days.

So is fucking Milo Yiannopolous and he's a pile of shit for the ages with a fresh crop of flies buzzing around him.

Milo is more than just a pedo apologist - he's singled out transgender students, he has engaged in targeted harassment and he has actively worked with Neo-Nazis.

The Alt-Reich is just a pretty new word for what we always called them, which is simply Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists. That you take any criticism of the establishments deemed "white" as an attack on you says you are of the same batch as Yiannopolous and others like Andrew Anglin and Joshua Bonehill.

I never said I was offended per se, I was just pointing out how Trump was being called racist yet Hillary said something racist in the past but no one held her to task about it in this past election cycle.

To Quote (paraphrased) Larry Wilmore: "Bernie Sanders marched with Martin Luther King jr and Hillary started her political carrier working undercover to expose housing discrimination. Where I stand the democrats have earned the benefit of the doubt on race."

Sorry but I'm assuming the quote is taken out of context or isn't true because almost everything else you said about Hillary is provably wrong.

Hillary did not leave anyone to die in Benghazi. Multiple investigations cleared her of wrongdoing.

Same for her E-mails. No investigation found any wrongdoing on her part.

And She and Obama did not start the Syrian Civil War. That doesn't even make sense. How could they have? What leads you to that conclusion?

The reason Trump's racism was focused on more then Hillary's is because his entire campaign was only about race. The only consistent policies he advocated were "build the wall" and "ban Muslims". When this guy is at Trump's rally and no-one like that is at Hillary's then yes Trump's is going to get the focus.

No I am not going to be your new UP or a chewtoy. I don't know why you all are dogpiling me just because I voted for Trump and have different viewpoints. This forum used to allow for civil discourse but quite honestly I feel I am being attacked. I don't know if I even want to stay or not and I have been on these forums since way back and it was never quite like this back then. At least back then we did tolerate and respect those with differing opinions. And no, I am not whining or being a crybaby since someone will bring that up.

I'm sorry if you feel attacked but there is a difference between a different viewpoint and a falsehood. The Earth is Round and The Earth is Flat are not two equally valid viewpoints to be respected. One is correct and the other is wrong, and if someone advocate the latter refuses to admit they were mistaken, why should they be respected?

Hillary Clinton did not start the Syrian Civil War. That's just wrong. She did not leave people to die in Benghazi. That's just wrong.

Ok, tell you what. I'm going to sleep on this and do some more research, if anything my mind can always be changed about something, I just feel a bit hurt right now and not really thinking rationally.

I will say that I still don't like SJWs, BLM, and the notion of "white privilege" and "white supremacy" That hurts me because deep in my heart I have no hatred for other races yet I am being attacked by these extremists for my skin color. I have been taught that we should be equal and I believe in that whole heartedly.

But yeah let me sleep on this and in the meantime if you want to give me links you can. My medications are starting to hit me and I got to go to bed. I just want you to know that I am still a kind hearted person.

I will say that I still don't like SJWs, BLM, and the notion of "white privilege" and "white supremacy" That hurts me because deep in my heart I have no hatred for other races yet I am being attacked by these extremists for my skin color. I have been taught that we should be equal and I believe in that whole heartedly.

Nobody makes the choice of receiving white privilege. Nobody (well, this being the internet almost nobody) makes the argument that it makes you or me a bad person. It means we don't encounter the same difficulties and prejudices in our lives that a non-white person does and being aware of that helps us empathize more with them. It also doesn't mean that we cannot face other difficulties that may make our lives as a whole more difficult than many non-whites' lives; a non-white person in your or my situation just would have the additional burden of racial prejudice.

I would like to know what the basis for your anxiety is. Can you explain further with sources if possible? I am asking out of genuine empathy hoping to help you find a way to a closure on the issue.

I made the assumption that Yusra Khogali is a source for a lot of it since based on a Google search she seems to get a lot of attention from alt-right and regular right wing websites. She has posted a black supremacist rant with the added bonus of pseudoscientific fantasy but does not promote killing all whites unlike the right-wing narrative tries to tell you.

What did she actually tweet?

Quote

Plz Allah give me strength to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today.

Sigh. The "Die cis scum" debate in a racial context. Anyone intending to point out how this is bad, mmkay, should just read through that mess again.

I am not good at defining things, what do you want me to do? I am pretty sure you can see examples on Youtube and elsewhere but SJWs are those far leftists who get offended by everything and want to force their viewpoints on everyone else. Political correctness is basically replacing words are phrases that are deemed "offensive" with words that are less offensive unfortunately this causes censorship and people can't say what they want to say.

A social justice warrior is just anyone who has taken the fight for any races, sexual orientations, genders, gender inequality and gender equality, religion etc way too far to the point where It's not a left wing or right wing thing. Alt righters are just white people SJWs who need their internet safe spaces like on /pol/ or r/The_Donald or Breitbart just like every other special internet snow flake.

You know what? I don't think I am even going to win here so I guess I am just going to leave. I used to love this place for having real, rational discussions and people respected others but now I feel that I am being ridiculed because of who I voted for and why. I have had nothing but respect for those who had different beliefs and ideas but apparently I don't belong here and no I am not "running away" nor am I unable to take it so I am just going to go.

Maybe in the future I will come back, I don't know but all I want to say is congratuations on getting the mainpage back and good luck to you.

Ok, tell you what. I'm going to sleep on this and do some more research, if anything my mind can always be changed about something, I just feel a bit hurt right now and not really thinking rationally.

I will say that I still don't like SJWs, BLM, and the notion of "white privilege" and "white supremacy" That hurts me because deep in my heart I have no hatred for other races yet I am being attacked by these extremists for my skin color. I have been taught that we should be equal and I believe in that whole heartedly.

You may not have hatred, but scientist have found that almost everyone has very strong unconscious racism without knowing it.

You can be a racist without openly hating anyone. Me too, I can easily think of times when I've acted on unconscious racism and didn't realize it until later.

I actual want to say something about Morality here: my view is that if you are certain that you aren't racist, that you are kindhearted, that you are a good person to the point where you take offense and outrage at the idea you might not be, that kind of thinking makes you a bad person.

I do not believe in God, but I actually do think that Christians are right about some of their basic ideas about morality: we are all sinners. Pride is the root of most sin. And being a good person is about seeking redemption.

One of my favorite books ever, Evil by Roy Baumeister a book on the psychology of why people do evil things, has this line that really stuck with me. (paraphrasing a bit) "Psychologist gathered data to find what were the different categories of pathologically violent people. But when you use modern statistical methods it turns out there aren't different categories, just one (with a few rare exceptions): The Fragile Narcissist."

Now I am not accusing you of being pathologically violent, or of being mentally ill. But Fragile Narcissism can still show up in normal people, and it makes them into bad people. The certainty that you are good and kind and being unable to handle the idea that you aren't, that stops you from being able to see it if you are in the wrong. It stops you from trying to improve yourself. It justifies cruelty because if you are good then what you've done can't be bad.

Being a good person is about having the humility to admit you aren't perfect. That you aren't a good person. But that you will put in the work to be better.

The Trump movement strikes me as entirely based on Fragile Narcissism. This anger over being thought of as racist seems a very common theme. It's all about "We know we're the greatest. The problem is everyone else's fault. We should stop apologizing, stop examining our own actions. How dare they think we are wrong, that we are flawed. We are justified in doing cruel things like banning refugees because we are good and they are bad because they don't think we are good." That that pitch is always tempting, as are it's many equivalents on the political left. But whenever you hear that remember, that's Satan speaking. That is the path to the darkside. And it will always end in tears.

Rads...tha hell? I have yet to see anyone openly ridicule you; from my point of view, they want to understand how you could do what ya did for the reasons you claim to have. Being 100% honest, I don't get it, either. Hillary could've literally called a black person "nigger" once, and that still wouldn't come close to the levels of racism D-Tizzle has expressed numerous times in the past. The problem is that you seem to willfully ignore your side doing the same shit you accuse Hillary et al of doing.

Well, I'll nix my post as my points tend to contain a fair amount of invective, and I really don't want her to leave.

Not that Radiation isn't being unreasonable; she is. She posted her views, had an obvious double standard, was called on it, and is now leaving because that's easier than confronting short-comings within her paradigm.

So now that both the Senate and the House have voted to strip you of any privacy protections on the Internet, people are looking to raise money to buy the browsing history of all 265 Republican Representatives and Senators who voted to do that. (Plus President Trump's, if he signs it.)

*sigh* While I don't like the idea of people quitting because they feel ganged up on, as far as I can see that didn't happen here. People might have been passionate about the ideas they were debating but the invective was on a pretty low dial. For when it's turned up look at the locked Gamergate thread or any discussion with Contrarian.

I'm sorry you're leaving Radiation, but people weren't saying you were bad. They were saying you were wrong. Different.

You can be a racist without openly hating anyone. Me too, I can easily think of times when I've acted on unconscious racism and didn't realize it until later.

This.

"Racist" is not solely restricted to this (http://userscontent2.emaze.com/images/4f062fa0-3f2f-4414-9334-8ec99400cb9e/6acddfa7-b633-4c34-907d-e525931ed19e.jpg), this (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5RKcSfJTkT4/TCj_NT0dMDI/AAAAAAAAEp4/mlVsceW5r4w/s1600/klansman1.jpg) or even this (http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/56c640526e97c625048b822a-480/donald-trump.jpg).

*sigh* While I don't like the idea of people quitting because they feel ganged up on, as far as I can see that didn't happen here. People might have been passionate about the ideas they were debating but the invective was on a pretty low dial. For when it's turned up look at the locked Gamergate thread or any discussion with Contrarian.

I'm sorry you're leaving Radiation, but people weren't saying you were bad. They were saying you were wrong. Different.

Ok, I won't leave, leave but I need to be away for a while at least. This whole thing has me upset.

And that's on you. You knew this place was left-leaning and somewhat logical. You came in here, sputtered a bunch of points and haven't made a single attempt at defending them from a logical standpoint. Honestly we haven't changed Radiation, you have.

https://www.gofundme.com/BuyCongressData*redacted due to irrelevance* (Plus President Trump's, if he signs it.)

Yeah, I think it's safe to say that Mel Brooks as the governor in Blazing Saddles would be more likely to veto something like this than Trump.

I don't doubt Trump will sign it. I can only hope the Dems (all of whom opposed the resolution, save only the three Representatives who did not vote) make a campaign issue out of it in 2018.

Because I will bet any amount of money that if you asked any number of random people on the street whether they think ISPs should be able to sell their personal browsing histories to third parties, the answer would be an overwhelming "NO!"

If it's done right, I'd be okay with this. If ISPs do what social media has been doing ever since it was a thing and offer their service for free in exchange for selling your data, while also giving the option of paying and keeping your data to yourself if you so desire, that would be pretty cool.

A shame the current lot far too corrupt and/or incompetent to make it work.

I am not good at defining things, what do you want me to do? I am pretty sure you can see examples on Youtube and elsewhere but SJWs are those far leftists who get offended by everything and want to force their viewpoints on everyone else. Political correctness is basically replacing words are phrases that are deemed "offensive" with words that are less offensive unfortunately this causes censorship and people can't say what they want to say.

I guess I'm going to renege a bit in the interest of asking some questions on this:

1. Which "words and phrases" are being replaced by political correctness? Since you are citing political correctness as a problem that stifles words and phrases, I would like specific examples.

2. How does replacing "offensive" words and phrases "with words that are less offensive" stifle intelligent debate? You can still effectively make the same points, only with slightly different wording to convey the message; it's like telling a story while not saying the "fuck" word in polite company.

3. To what extent should society accept these offensive "words and phrases"? And I want to put emphasis on your use of "words and phrases," in contrast to ideas or thoughts. Words have varying degrees of utility and vulgarity. For example, words like esoteric, opulent, elide, and panacea have high utility (they are fun to say, good to drop in conversation, and are quite specific in their meaning and usage) without vulgarity. In contrast, words and phrases like faggot, "white power," and the n-word have less value (or specificity for that matter) and considerably more vulgarity. So, where do you draw the line on words among these two considerations?

4. Maybe my career path has influenced my views, but I tend to see censorship more as the state restriction on speech, not necessarily adverse social opinions. Said differently, if the state is arresting you for saying something (other than a confession), that is probably a violation of free speech. On the other hand, if society is rejecting what you have to say, then that is the free market place of ideas saying your views have no value to society. So, to what extent should society have to accept offensive words and phrases? If Fred calls Jim the n-word, should society not be free to shun (rather than accept) Fred for his callous disregard for basic decency?

5. How does the concept of "social justice warriors" validate Casino Mussolini for president? Social Justice Warriors are typically people on the internet who get called "cucks" by people with an odd penchant for a certain internet frog: not politicians or legislators. Saying "I'm voting for Donald Trump because of social justice warriors" is rather akin to saying "I'm voting for Frank Underwood so that Tyrion doesn't get killed in season 7": It's a non sequitur wherein the action taken is unrelated to the perceived problem.